introduction to e-learning research - ideals...introduction to e-learning research r ic h a rd a n d...

Introduction to E-learningResearch

Richard Andrews and Caro l ineHaythornthwai te

The publication of the SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research marks a signifi-cant point in studies in e-learning. Although there has been considerabledevelopment in teaching and learning, as well as in learning design, there is asyet no coherent view of what constitutes research in the field nor of how best toundertake it. The present volume takes stock of progress in e-learning research,addressing a range of issues from student experience to policy and provides afoundation for further research and development.

By e-learning research, we mean primarily research into, on, or about the useof electronic technologies for teaching and learning. This encompasses learningfor degrees, work requirements and personal fulfilment, institutional and non-institutionally accredited programmes, in formal and informal settings. Itincludes anywhere, anytime learning, as well as campus-based extensions toface-to-face classes. E-learning includes all levels of education from pre-schoolto secondary/high school, higher education and beyond. The potential for thisarea is broad. For this handbook, the focus is primarily on e-learning in theformal setting of degree-granting institutes of higher education. However, withmany kinds of e-learning and computer-assisted teaching entering all arenas ofeducation, from schools to workplaces, examples from other arenas of educationenter into and carry important information for the discussion.

As a working definition of e-learning, the following from the HigherEducation Funding Council for England (HEFCE) can serve as a starting point:

1

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

The use of technologies in learning opportunities, encompassing flexible learning as well asdistance learning; and the use of information and communication technology as a commu-nications and delivery tool, between individuals and groups, to support students andimprove the management of learning.

(HEFCE, 2005: 12)

However, this definition is not an end point, and at points in the Introduction andthroughout the Handbook we will take issue with some aspects of this initialdefinition. In particular we take issue with the way the HEFCE definitionappears to portray technology as simply a delivery mechanism, and fails toaddress the co-evolutionary nature of technology and its use. The Handbookchapters together help provide a more nuanced and elaborated definition andappreciation of e-learning.

Since the mid-1980s or so we have seen the rapid evolution of Computer-Assisted Learning (CAL) and Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) into CourseManagement Systems (CMS) and Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). Fromearly forays into the use of computers to assist, or indeed provide the entire basisfor learning with particular topics to more recent activities involving VLEs andother custom-designed interfaces, the computer has held a fascination for teach-ers, lecturers, learning designers and learners alike. At times claims have beenhyped: it has been variously claimed that computers would revolutionize learning,bring about the end of the book, put an end to institutionalized learning and/orimprove the quality of learning. Rarely have these claims been properly tested. Atother times its impact has been overly downplayed, as in the many studies thatfind ‘no significant difference’ between face-to-face learning and online learningoutcomes. Rarely do these studies look at the more transformative effects of e-learning, such as creating a distributed community, and learning new genres ofcommunication and collaborative work practice. We now appear to be at a stage ofdevelopment where we can gauge the impact of the computer on learning in amore measured, critical way, as well as taking a more comprehensive view ofchanges accompanying e-learning. It is in the spirit of such critique, realism, andexpanded view that the present volume has been conceived.

This introduction begins the discussion of e-learning research which is con-tinued in subsequent chapters. The introduction addresses definitional issues,taking time to explore the ‘e’ and ‘learning’ in e-learning, then theoretical andmethodological issues, before presenting a model of co-evolutionary processesof technology and learning.

In choosing to use the term ‘e-learning’ we have turned away from othernames that might equally have been useful, such as computer-assisted learning,technology-enhanced learning, instructional technologies or online learning. Tous, these terms fall into the trap that many previous studies of the relationshipbetween technology and learning/education have fallen into, of assuming thatlearning exists independently of technologies and that in various ways technolo-gies enhance it. The causal assumptions behind terms such as ‘technology-enhanced learning’ are ones we critique in this introduction.

2 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF E-LEARNING RESEARCH

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

‘E-learning’ as a term is a hybrid. Like many compounds, the two elementshave worked together to create a new hybrid. Nevertheless, it is made up of twoparts: e + learning. The ‘e’ of e-learning has a longer history than many willassume, including long-term efforts to capture voice and images, and to storeand then transmit those recordings. With each capture – from records to CDs,film to DVD, conversation to text chat – there are trade-offs in quality, interac-tivity, and transferability: trade-offs that mark both the pros and cons oftechnology mediation. The following section takes us through some of this jour-ney, giving historical and theoretical perspectives on electronic media.

But first we give an example based on the use of one technology – electronicwhiteboards, implemented primarily in secondary/high school settings – thatshows the kind of work that needs to be done to bring experience with technolo-gies together into a research framework.

AN EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH ISSUES: ELECTRONIC WHITEBOARDS

Symptomatic of the problems facing researchers in e-learning is the case ofelectronic interactive whiteboards – touch-sensitive screens that work in con-junction with a computer and projector – and their efficacy in learning. Theissue is that there is little substantial research on the topic (though see Smith etal., 2005), and yet many schools have installed them in place of blackboards orother forms of large-scale projection in a classroom. Reports are anecdotal,based on perceptions of pro-technology innovators and even of the technologyvendors, with reviews of their use describing and justifying, post hoc, the use ofwhiteboards in the classroom. Whiteboards are examined in isolation, withoutconsidering their place in the social and technological context of the classroom,or of the evolution of technology and practice over time.

Most of the studies of whiteboards have been small-scale and descriptive, themost in-depth and evaluative being those by Glover and Miller (2001) andGoodison (2002; see also Gerard and Widener, 1999; Levy, 2002). Glover andMiller (2001) report on the views of both students and staff on the impact ofinteractive whiteboards in a secondary/high school. They discuss and describethe use, teaching and learning implications, problems and potential of white-boards. They find that the attitudes of teachers towards the use of interactivewhiteboards are particularly critical: where teachers adapt their pedagogy, theuse of whiteboards has more impact; where they are used as a surrogate black-board, the impact is less significant. Whiteboards are described as increasingefficiency, enabling teachers to draw on a range of ICT resources fluently andwith pace; as extending learning and creating new learning styles stimulated byinteraction with the whiteboard (BECTA, 2003b). Because of the role of theteacher, Glover and Miller conclude that training in the use of whiteboards iskey to the transformation of classrooms and of the learning experience for

INTRODUCTION TO E-LEARNING 3

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

young people. Goodison (2002) used interviews to collect data on the views ofprimary/elementary school children on the use of interactive whiteboards.Goodison found that whiteboards played a significant role in facilitating class-room instruction, social learning and student engagement with technology.However, it was not clear from this work what effect or impact the electronicwhiteboard had on learning. As with many such articles, the results are pre-sented as a positive finding about whiteboards.

In the UK, the British Educational Communication and Technology Agency(BECTA, 2003a) has been appropriately cautious about the research on elec-tronic whiteboards. It acknowledges that they were a relatively recenttechnology with little research literature relating to them in refereed academicjournals. BECTA (2003b) concludes that much of the evidence about the impactof whiteboards on learning is anecdotal, conducted by schools or school boardsand local authorities, and carried out on a small scale. That the research islargely qualitative is not a problem, in that such a study could provide keyinsights into the way an electronic whiteboard is used. But as most of the studiesare of the perceptions of use (elicited via questionnaires and interviews, anec-dotes and personal testimony), and as most of those reporting their perceptionsare excited – like pioneers – by the new technology, it is probably too early tosay that there is much reliable or substantial research evidence to hand. In amore recent review (BECTA, 2006) the indication is that the installation and useof interactive whiteboards in the UK have spread rapidly, with 93 per cent of primary schools and 97–8 per cent of secondary schools reportingthat they had installed such technology (some under political pressure frombodies like the Office for Standards in Education). This review also notes thatthere has been a pilot evaluation of the use of interactive/electronic whiteboardsin mathematics and literacy lessons in primary schools (Higgins et al., 2005),with a more large-scale evaluation of the Department of Education and SkillsSchools Whiteboard Expansion program due in 2006/07. The most recent pres-entation on the latter evaluation at time of writing was by Somekh and Haldane(2006), who report on behalf of a larger project team that they used multi-levelmodelling of attainment of individual children, based on gains in national testscores, questionnaire surveys, observations of interactive whiteboard training,and digital video classroom observation from ten case study primary schools.They suggest that the interactive whiteboard can act as a mediating tool betweenteacher and pupils; that its size can excite and motivate children; that it haspotential for special needs use; that it can speed up learning as well as providean archived record of use. Questions are also raised about the nature of interac-tivity. It could be that this particular Department for Education Skills (DfES)evaluation, when completed, will provide a foundation or benchmark for furtherstudy and research on the topic; or, as BECTA (2006) puts it, a ‘robust assess-ment of the impact of interactive display technologies which we currently lack’(p. 11).


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Other information on whiteboard use comes from the vendors themselves. Ina ‘review of classroom case studies and research literature’ from the US, the UKand Australia, SMART Technologies (2004) – the self-described ‘industry leaderin interactive whiteboard technology’ (online) – conclude that interactive white-boards affect learning in several ways:

They serve to raise the level of student engagement in a classroom, motivate students andpromote enthusiasm for learning. In at least one case, the addition of an interactive white-board positively influenced student attendance. Interactive whiteboards support manydifferent learning styles and have been successfully employed in hearing and visuallyimpaired learning environments. Research also indicates higher levels of student retention,and notes taken on an interactive whiteboard can play a key role in the student reviewprocess. In addition to student learning, observations also indicate that designing lessonsaround interactive whiteboards can help educators streamline their preparation and be moreefficient in their ICT integration.

(2004: 3)

The problem with such a review is, of course, that it is not independent. And,again, it is the positive results that are highlighted. Thus, it is unclear what edu-cators may take from such a review in order to make informed decisions aboutthe adoption of such tools. But it is also clear that the technology itself, as wellas its use, develops over time. Somekh and Haldane (2006) suggest that teacherswere largely confident in the use of the tool because of their daily use of it,which cannot be said of practice even five years earlier in a range of ICTs.

This example shows the potential and the need for various kinds of examina-tions of e-learning and its technologies. There is room for systematic andindependent research reviews on e-learning topics, ones that balance a pro-innovation view with the realities of large-scale implementation. Chapters in thisHandbook serve as reviews for a number of topics relating to e-learning. Thereis also substantial room for small and large-scale primary research studies usingtechniques such as direct observation, control and experimental groups, and lon-gitudinal dimensions. As in the example above, the focus is too often on the newcomputing technology as a single entity, introduced and used in one way at onetime. This ignores implementation and adoption effects, the use of other com-plementary technologies, and the reciprocal, co-evolutionary nature of therelationship between technologies and learning. These are the kinds of issuesaddressed when research steps in to make sense of e-learning as a system- andsocietal-wide change in teaching and learning.

We turn now to beginning the task of addressing e-learning and e-learningresearch. We start by providing context for the current wave of e-learning tech-nologies, reviewing important trends in recording and dissemination ofmaterials that form the historical background for the ‘e’ in e-learning, beforejoining it up again with ‘learning’.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

THE ‘E’ IN E-LEARNING

What is the ‘e’ in e-learning, and what does it mean for learning? The ‘e’ in e-learning joins many common hybrids such as e-mail and e-commerce insignifying enactment through electronic means, typically interpreted as computer-based. Essential components of all ‘e’ enterprises are the computer hardware andsoftware, but also the networking infrastructures that make it possible to collectand distribute data, information and knowledge to people at different times andlocations. Devices that permit access to these data streams now no longer need tobe the fixed desktop computer. The mobility and multimedia capabilities affordedby laptops, palmtops (also known as Personal Digital Assistants, PDAs), mobilephones, and media players (e.g. MP3 players), shatter our notions of where and bywhat means ‘e’ activities can take place. Thus, in considering e-learning, weinclude a range of electronically networked Information and CommunicationTechnology (ICT) via which learning can take place.

While we often find e-learning reified as a particular course managementsystem, its flexibility lies in the way new technologies are quickly appropriatedinto the e-learning toolkit. This is possible because of continuing efforts to crosshardware platforms. At its basis, e-learning technology, like all other e-enterprises, depends on hardware to process digital or analogue signals; soft-ware that can encode and decode, collect, store and forward, and presentcommunications in visual, textual and/or audio modes; applications and systemsthat bring together tools to support data storage and retrieval, course manage-ment, computer-mediated communication, and collaborative virtualenvironments. As we will discuss below, equally important in this technologicalmix are the people who use the systems – teachers, instructors, administrators,students – each bringing to the e-learning enterprise their ideas of how teaching,learning, and communication should be enacted.

Educators have long been appropriating technologies into the classroom,from radio and television, records and record players, video reels and projectors,to today’s computers, CDs, DVDs, podcasts, and more. What the digital revolu-tion has done is free the information and its carriers from the classroom, makingthe information available in ever increasingly mobile ways. What is often forgot-ten is how each of these technologies performs a slightly different way of codingand decoding data and information, at times enhancing one mode of communi-cation over another, but each changing where and when we receive informationand communication. The following presents a brief historical background toemphasize that computing technologies represent the current culmination ofmany years of electronic encoding protocols and devices, each with its ownlimits and affordances. Later, we pick up again the notion of affordances to dis-cuss contemporary computing technologies.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Coding and decoding signals

The historical shift from analogue to digital technology has revolutionalized theresources for learning by making material available that is high-fidelity, andwhich can be repurposed, easily reproduced (within copyright constraints), andreviewed in a number of different modes via a number of different types of hard-ware. E-learning, as we define it in this volume, could hardly be imaginedwithout the digital shift. The vast majority of electronic information, in thebroad, technical sense of the word, is now transferred in digital form. In the UKand US, for example, there are plans to switch the entire broadcasting of televi-sion to digital format (by 2010 in the UK and 2009 in the US).

The translation of a message via digital coding generally makes for less inter-ference and thus better quality of the communication. Indeed, since suchrecordings can be made without even travelling through the vibrating air, e.g.from a digital piano direct to the recording device, they represent more ‘purely’the origin of the sound. However, such ‘purity’ can come across as clinical,without the attendant sounds that accompany live music, such as the performer’sbreathing or the audience reaction. The analogy for e-learning is that an instruc-tor’s words, flawlessly typed into text for distribution to students, can fail toconvey the enthusiasm they express verbally, the pacing they use to present thetext, and the gaze they use while speaking. However, an advantage of digitalcoding is that the original message can be reproduced on an infinite number ofoccasions, without the deterioration that takes place in the course of translationthrough repeated use of the kinds of materials that tend to be used with analoguerecording, like vinyl or tape. Similarly, the instructor’s words remain available,distributable and reproducible long after the lecture presentation has taken place.Thus, at the recording and transmission level, there are differences in the kind ofmessage and translation of communication that occurs, and that are likely tohave an impact on e-learning.

Digital recording is now not only easy to do, but easy to disseminate. Neithertapes nor CDs need to be distributed to remote sites; nor is specialized equip-ment (beyond the computer) needed to decode the recording. There are a fewcaveats. First that non-specialized and widely available recording and playbackequipment provides a generic representation without the fidelity available indedicated, high-end technologies such as those for audio, photography, or film.However, one might argue that this has always been the case, since high-fidelityrecordings have for a long time been played back on simpler, less expensive,stereo equipment. In the Computer Age, this issue may be more importantbecause of more widespread, low-fidelity, data recording devices that combinewith wide dissemination, e.g. cameras in cell phones, audio recording in lap-tops, and movie capability in digital cameras. Media production is changingfrom high fidelity/low number to low fidelity/high number. Dissemination ischanging from specialized and controlled to widespread and grass-roots.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Second, newer translations from full-screen to smaller handheld or mobilephone interface truncate and reinterpret text and visual representations (both insending messages, e.g. by Short Messaging Service (SMS), and in receiving them,e.g. in receiving Web pages on very small screens). Whereas dedicated technolo-gies formerly ensured that decoding was approximately the same for all receivers(within the range, say, of the size of a television screen, or quality of record-play-ing audio equipment), current message receivers may be using markedly differentdecoding schemes. This is an issue not just for formerly analogue messages.Information produced and published on the Web may appear differently depend-ing on the colour palette of the computer screen, the Web browser in use, the sizeof the window and the operating system of the computer. What you see on retriev-ing from the Web is not necessarily what we see from the Web.

Third, the ubiquity of computer access and the expectation that ‘everyone,everywhere’ can have equal access to digital signals must be questioned: we arenot yet at the stage where broadband capabilities are equally available. Servicearrives late to low-population areas; wireless may be taken for granted in somecities and on some campuses, but this is by no means a universal service; andcell/mobile phone signals can be limited by geography and terrain. As well astechnical obstacles, cost can be a significant barrier in the acquisition of com-puters as well as of Internet services. The digital divide remains a real issuewithin societies and particularly internationally (see Gorard and Taylor, 2005;Haythornthwaite, this volume).

Modes of communication

Communication signals can carry sound, text, and images. These major forms ofcommunication are often called, metaphorically, ‘languages’. The aural andvisual modes translate directly into sounds and moving and still images; the tex-tual mode is, interestingly, based on an aural code (speech) but given visualform (text, letters). ‘Text’ is thus an abstracted, second-level symbolic system, ahighly powerful medium or mode of communication that is itself hybrid. It canbe conveyed visually and/or through sound and has, through history, manifesteditself in various languages, each using different symbolic representation systems(e.g. Latin, Greek, Sumerian, Mandarin). The term ‘text’ can also be used torefer to multimodal texts as well as to linguistic texts.

Text is of particular importance for e-learning because not only is educationheavily weighted toward the use and production of texts, but e-learningincreases the textual load with conversations and interactions occurring largelythrough the texts of chat rooms, blogs, e-mail, bulletin boards, etc. Notions ofAsynchronous Learning Networks (ALN), prevalent since the mid-1990s, stressnear-exclusive use of text-based postings. It is only recently that proponents ofALN have begun to see this as a supplement or extender to face-to-face interac-tion, in ideas of blended learning (see below). This despite the fact that


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

programmes which have long been including synchronous and oral/aural com-ponents have found the interactivity and ability to hear others as the mainattractions of real-time meetings on e-learning (e.g. Haythornthwaite andKazmer, 2004). In e-learning in general, text has led the way, partly for technicalconsiderations (e.g. slow Internet connections lead to video and even audiodelays that make real-time interaction unworkable) and partly because the edu-cational emphasis on text tends to place audio and video modalities second inimportance and relevance.

As Stuckey and Barab suggest in this volume, to move away from single, text-mode communication for e-learning requires both social and technical planning.Multimodality occurs naturally in face-to-face settings, transparently combiningvisual, oral, aural and other physical cues with immediacy of communication.1

Not so online. E-multimodality or multimedia must be planned, making choicesbetween presentation via text, audio and/or video connection, as well as workingout the social logistics of synchronicity, turn taking, and cross-modal interaction(e.g. live audio with text chat for questions, recorded video with audio questionsand asynchronous text response). However, as multimedia options expandonline, e-learning can move away from the notion that to learn something mustbe to abstract it, classify it, and simplify it. Instead, learning could be conceivedas a framed activity, that entails bringing to the frame an open mind, willingnessto learn, and a degree of concentration necessary to learn. In addition, learningwould be expressible or (more likely) recastable in a different medium or media;and thus assessable, if necessary. Whole experiences may be captured and dis-seminated in multimodal formats, including moving image, sound, and text.However, the ability to include everything, from everywhere leads quickly toinformation overload. Like the writer Borges’s mnemonist, we would needwhole days to evaluate others’ experiences of whole days. Thus, issues of selec-tivity come more to the fore, particularly in choosing what real-time capture tospend time viewing.

Information and communication technologies

In considering the ‘e’ side of e-learning, we need to address the products thathave been made to store, access, and use information and which support theinformation and communication activities of e-learning. Computer use in e-learning is, at the most immediate level, experienced via software. Computersrun on operating systems, like Windows, Linux or MacOS which provide thebasic architecture. Specific software packages for particular purposes, like wordprocessing, games, and spreadsheets created by commercial enterprises or col-laborative efforts in open source computing, run on the foundation provided bythe operating system. Collections of applications are then brought together intosingle environments – virtual learning environments, Collaborative VirtualEnvironments (CVEs), course management systems – with a common look andfeel that signifies entry into a particular set of norms, practices and participants.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Computer interfaces provide the entré into online environments. At their bestfor information access they are easy to use, follow known conventions, are con-sistent, and support both the novice and advanced user; at their best, forcommunication, they allow seamless interaction with others through computersrather than with the computer. This is not the place to recapitulate the extensivework in human computer interaction (HCI; see, for example, Nielsen, 1994;Carroll, 2002), but it is the place to point out the importance of the interface inthe user’s experience of the e-learning environment. Upcoming research issuesinclude not just what the best computer interface is for particular learning envi-ronments, but also how these will scale to handheld devices, provideinteroperability between devices, and convergence of technologies on singledevices (e.g. laptops, palmtops and third-generation (3G) mobile phones).

Before computing, our electronic communication devices included the phone(dating from the 1870s), radio (1890s), and television (1920s). The advent of thecomputer (1940s) and its desktop (early 1980s), laptop (late 1980s), palmtop(1990s), and PDA/3G phone (2000s) versions have brought increased andextended mediated access to information as well as, more recently, convergencewith communication devices. In particular, the palmtop computer (or PDA) andthird-generation (3G) mobile phones are converging, not only using advanceddigital technology to access and use all three modes of communicationdescribed earlier (text, sound, image), but also to function as radios and televi-sions. Of course, none of this mobility would be possible without the rise ofnetwork infrastructures, including phone networks, computer cable networks,and wireless networks, as well as the accepted standards for communicatingalong these networks and rendering data on devices. Again, the history is toovast to discuss here (for further reading, see, for example, Abbate, 1999).

These multimodal devices suggest the future for ICT and e-learning. However,at present, they are little used. When we refer to e-learning and ICT, it is still, atthis early point of the twenty-first century, the (increasingly wireless) desktop orlaptop computer that is central to our concerns. While the small display featuresof palmtops and mobile phones may not be the major platform for e-learners,their existence suggests trends in how, when, and where we access informationand communicate with others. These general trends cannot help but affect thehabits of e-learners and thus also of e-learning instructors and administrators.(For more on mobile learning, see Sharples, Taylor and Vavoula, this volume.)

As well as the technology advances noted above, ICT for e-learning alsoincludes many new and emerging technologies specifically designed to supportlearning activities. These include in-class tools such as the electronic whiteboardsnoted above; large tablet displays that accept and project writing on top of pre-for-matted data so notes can be added during presentations; and clickers used bystudents to vote for their answers to questions. Added to these are the new onlinegames used as media for learning and communication (see McFarlane, thisvolume), immersive technologies for virtual world and whole-body interaction,


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

and blogs and wikis as media for class writing and collaborative writing. We notethese few here to highlight the rapidly expanding technological base that is evolv-ing in conjunction with learning both in and outside the traditional classroom.

Features and affordances

Technologies are useful to the extent that they allow users – instructors, stu-dents, administrators – to achieve their goals. Sometimes technology facilitatesapplication in education, sometimes it inhibits it. In discussing the use of tech-nology, many analysts turn to Gaver’s (1996) use of the term affordances(following Gibson, 1979; see also Norman, 1988) to make the distinctionbetween the explicit features of technology and what these allow or facilitate forusers. Explicit features of ICTs include such things as whether multiple modesare supported; whether design is for single or group use; whether interaction iseffected through the keyboard, mouse, joystick or glove; whether data storageand retrieval occur to and from the Internet or on the local desktop. What a tech-nology affords are ways of communicating and connecting with others, beingvisible in the online context, viewing and using data and information, creatingand displaying content, and linking with others and with resources.

Affordances signify the possibilities for users, but, for these to become real-ity, systems must actually be used. Yet, in keeping with much that has beenwritten about the adoption of technologies (Rogers, 1995), users may resist newuses, may not know how to use new features, or may avoid them as too compli-cated or incompatible with previous practice. Some of the affordances listedabove are social affordances that provide possibilities for awareness and co-ordinated action with others (Bradner et al., 1999). These affordances may beparticularly difficult to enact because users need to work together to create col-lective uses that are of benefit to the group as a whole. In these cases, someusers may need to lead use by seeding a shared database, starting discussion andactivity on a listserv, or modelling communication behaviours until a criticalmass of users and behaviours is established (Connolly and Thorn, 1990;Haythornthwaite, 2002a, b, 2005; Markus, 1990). Social affordances are of par-ticular relevance for e-learning since instructors strive to be aware of studentsand their contributions, and collaborative learning advocates promote the advan-tages of peer-to-peer awareness, exchange, and engagement (e.g. Bruffee, 1993;Koschmann, 1996; Koschmann et al., 2002; Miyake, this volume). Thus, ratherthan looking only at the features of a medium, it is important to examine whatthese features mean for users of the environment.

As an example of this issue, we take the key feature of asynchronicity and seewhat this affords for communication and e-learning.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Asynchronous technology and its affordances for e-learning

Perhaps one of the most talked about characteristics of computer-mediated com-munication and, one might argue, the most transformative is the ability to carryon conversations asynchronously. To be completely correct, asynchronous com-munication is in fact an affordance based on systems designed to store andretrieve messages. Computer technologies such as e-mail, listservs, bulletinboards, blogs, and wikis store messages for retrieval, review and response attimes of the user’s making. For the user, these each afford anytime communica-tion. Depending on the availability of computing and networks, they can alsoafford anywhere communication. The applications differ in their affordances forrouting messages specifically to others. For e-mail, unique identifiers forsenders and receivers route messages to just the specified audience. In listservsand bulletin boards, posters are identified, but receivers may gain access moregenerally by entering passwords to view all posted information. The same is trueof postings on blogs and wikis, although their use is more prevalent withoutpassword protection and thus anyone with computer and Web access can viewthe posted information in the same way as other kinds of Web pages.

These differences across these media may appear subtle, but each systemaffords different visibilities of messages, senders, and audience, which in turnafford different kinds of uses. E-mail affords privacy and control of readership(notwithstanding legal precedence for access to e-mail archives), which in turnmay encourage discussion of more sensitive, personal information. Bulletinboards provide threading, grouping topics as they are discussed, affording easierreview of message history. Blogs afford easy posting to the Web and a stage onwhich to perform for a broad, unspecified audience. Identifiers for senders andreceivers may range from a set of anonymous-looking numbers to user-selected‘handles’ that afford self-expression about identity or character. They may beeasily traceable to the actual individual or provide protection from actual identi-fication. Individuals may use one or many identifiers to present themselves toothers, deliberately or by accumulation maintaining multiple identities withinone type of medium (e.g. as we keep multiple e-mail addresses on various e-mail servers). Groups of receivers may be indicated by single names, e.g. whensending to a listserv address, obscuring whether the message is being sent to afew or many others. Thus identifiers can afford anonymity, role playing, and dis-guise, and can equally afford open identification.

Contemporary computing has made it possible to use many kinds of devicesto interact with servers where messages are stored. This affords mobility. Aposter no longer needs to be hardwired from their desktop to the institution’sservers, but instead can access systems on and via the Web, through wirelesscommunication initiated on their laptop, palmtop, or mobile phone. Mobility ofindividuals also means distribution of participants. Online engagement of thiskind does not specify how many learners can be in the engagement at any onetime, nor where they are embedded at the time they are members of the learning


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

community. They could be accessing the engagement for different periods oftime each, from different machines (desktop, laptop, palmtop, phone), in differ-ent situations (café, home, hilltop, bus, etc.) and in different locations around theworld. This affords the opportunity to bring in experiences from these differentlocations and suggests the ability to apprentice locally at the same time asobtaining education remotely. Thus the notion of ‘situated learning’ (Lave andWenger, 1991) is not abandoned, but instead is given new identity through e-learning. It now operates at two levels: the local embedding, potentiallyleveraging an apprenticeship (see Kazmer, this volume) and the online embed-ding, creating an apprenticeship in the ways and means of online interaction andin the online practices of a future professional or interest-based community.Thus the ‘situation’ provides a dual education – in the subject and the onlineenvironment (Haythornthwaite et al., 2000) – and the potential for a dualapprenticeship in the local and online communities. Such contextualizing willcome into play again later in this chapter, when we address theoretical issues.

ICTs also afford a new rhythm of interaction, one that differs from face-to-face and classroom dynamics. Many find the new rhythm liberating, but othersdecry the loss of immediacy. What underpins much of the discussion of the prosand cons of asynchronous, distributed education is the degree of interactivityprovided by these various modes and means of communication. Interactivity canbest be characterized by depicting a spectrum of degrees relating to both whatthe technology affords for the granularity of interactivity and interactivityamong participants in online communities.

Interactivity with ICT devices ranges from low-degree – as occurs in interactivetelevision or touch-screen panels, where operations are limited to a few functionalbuttons – to a high degree of interactivity, as might be found for situations inwhich virtual reality headsets and hand controls provide fine-grained manipula-tions. Typical practice in the use of a computer interface would be somewherebetween these two extremes, but such interaction is often taken for granted. It isusually mediated via a conventional typewriter-derived keyboard (though there areother kinds, like concept keyboards). The user’s input, whether via a keyboard orvia a point-and-click mouse, is a significant limitation on the degree of interactiv-ity possible. A mouse, for example, can point only to operations that have alreadybeen programmed into the computer; whereas a keyboard allows the textual possi-bilities of language to be exploited. However, a keyboard can be a barrier tocommunication for those who find its operation cumbersome (e.g. those withphysical disabilities). In such cases, speech recognition technologies might yetprove to play a major part in interactivity. However, although available for sometime, such technologies have yet to attain a sufficient degree of sensitivity to thevarieties of the voice to become easy-to-use and reliable interface devices, andthey have not yet become standard with a computer purchase.

This approach to interactivity describes the affordances of the technology, butinteractivity also has a social, communicative dimension, one that may or may


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

not be achieved in practice. Interactivity can depend on the immediacy of ques-tion and response. This is inherently delayed in asynchronous settings comparedto synchronous settings. Yet social norms about response times and social prac-tices to respond in a timely manner go a long way to increasing the perceivedinteractivity of online communication. Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) use theterm ‘interactivity’ to address responsive behaviour in communication, viewingthis as a likely process that explains cohesion in online groups. As they state,

Interactivity is not a characteristic of the medium. It is a process-related construct about com-munication. It is the extent to which messages in a sequence relate to each other, andespecially the extent to which later messages recount the relatedness of earlier messages …Interactivity describes and prescribes the manner in which conversational interaction as an iter-ative process leads to jointly produced meaning. Interactivity merges speaking with listening.

(online, n.p.)

Thus key issues to bear in mind regarding interactivity are not only what thetechnology affords for iterative and respondent processes but also the extent towhich responsiveness is actually achieved using the medium.

Overall, posting messages for storage through contemporary networked com-puting affords the presentation of self online, sometimes anonymously andalways pseudonymously (at least to the extent an e-mail address is a pseudo-nym), usually abiding by group communication conventions, and originatingfrom any computer device, located anywhere with Internet access, at any time ofthe day or night. These are the essential elements bound up in the terms ‘asyn-chronous communication’ and ‘asynchronous learning’; it is the reason the areais called asynchronous learning networks, signifying the computer network, butperhaps more importantly the social network that sustains learning efforts(Harasim et al., 1995; Hiltz, Turoff and Harasim, this volume). Thus, more thananytime, anywhere input, it is anytime, anywhere access to a community whereconventions and common interests reside and where individuals pull together todefine the way their community will work. We will return to the notion of thecommunity of enquiry below, when we consider the ‘learning’ side of the e-learning equation, and when discussing theoretical models.

Beyond asynchronous

Text-based asynchronous communication is not the only option for e-learning.As outlined above many new technologies make it possible to include audio, stilland moving images into e-learning offerings, both from the instructor side, withformally produced audio or video, and from the student side, with informallyproduced pictures, audio, and video. Also as noted, including multimodal com-munication in e-learning requires planning. It also requires an understanding ofthe affordances that make such planning worthwhile. This is an area of researchthat deserves more attention from a learning perspective and that can inform theintroduction of new media into e-learning offerings.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Synchronous communication is found in many e-learning environments,including text, audio and video transmissions. Audio-conferencing has beenwith us for a while; new meeting software systems and better networking infra-structures now make video-conferencing a reality for multiple participants atmultiple sites (e.g. Internet2 in the US, http://www.internet2.edu/). Synchronoustext-based interaction is most prevalent and most available at present. Internetchat, instant messaging and more recently the short message text (SMS) avail-able on mobile phones are examples. Text chat is used in e-learning for live classsessions that permit all participants to type and enter comments simultaneously.This kind of interaction underpins popular multi-player games (Multi-UserDungeons or Dimension, MUDs) and is increasingly used for online confer-ences. Extensions add graphical interfaces to create virtual worlds for gaming(Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, MMORPG; and VirtualReality, VR), which are also being adopted and adapted for education.

Not only new technologies, but also new venues are opening up for e-learning. Where e-learning inherits from distance learning (see Thompson, thisvolume) it is taken to be synonymous with online interaction only, happeningaway from educational settings such as classrooms. However, the continued pen-etration of Internet use into everyday life, combined in some instances withincreased familiarity with online education, has led to a reverse trend of incor-porating online features into on-campus classrooms. This trend in blendedlearning is developing strongly as students entering higher education areincreasingly computer-savvy and highly conversant with online communication.

What is emerging is a spectrum of different combinations of e-learning withconventional learning. The term ‘blended learning’ has appeared to indicate prac-tices that sit in the middle of the spectrum between online, distributed approachesat one end and traditional, face-to-face teaching at the other. At the distributedend, a course or programme can be entirely delivered and engaged with electroni-cally. Every stage of the process of learning, from enquiry about the course toregistration, from access to the materials to their use, from the submission ofassignments to their marking, and so on to the final award of the degree or otherqualification, could be handled electronically, via a computer interface. Suchengagement could include synchronous communication or it could be handledwithout any synchronicity. In theory, as well as in practice, a course or programmecould replicate the notion of the correspondence course in which the learner actedindividually and had very little contact with teachers, lecturers or fellow students.

Moving along the spectrum, many online programmes build some face-to-face interaction (i.e., including physical proximity as well as synchronousengagement) into their schedule of largely electronic contact. For example, aprogramme might begin with a short residential course in which the learningcommunity (lecturers, students, administrators) get to know each other, engagein joint learning and set up contacts and allegiances which they will developelectronically while taking the degree. They might meet again for a week after


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

one year and again for a week towards the end of the programme. Such a patternis a type of blended learning. However, nothing is actually blended in such amodel. Rather, there is a combination of types of learning situations.

A mid-point on the spectrum would be a course or programme that wasdivided fifty–fifty between e-learning and conventional learning, in whateverforms those types of learning took.

Towards the other end of the spectrum, e-learning can be used as a supportfor more conventional types of learning. An example would be a conventionalundergraduate programme that provided reading material, a chat room, feedbackfacilities and e-mail contact with the lecturer or tutor in support of the pro-gramme. The Internet is there as a resource for electronic searching; someprogrammes provide guides or portals to enable students to access relevant data-bases, Web sites and other resources.

Finally, at the far end of the spectrum is conventional learning, by which wemean non-electronically mediated learning, fully offline, requiring no Internetaccess, online communication or online resource delivery. Even as we write wecannot imagine such a situation for higher education. Only retreats beyond thereach of Internet access and without the power to recharge portable devicescould now fit this bill. As for fully online learning, we imagine the benefits ofincluding use of ICTs in learning will be best achieved when attention is paid tothe affordances of the technologies. Again, there is much research yet to be doneon looking at these affordances for learning.

We end this section on e-learning by emphasizing again the need to considerthe way technologies have modified – for better or for worse – the way informa-tion is recorded, stored, disseminated, and reviewed. E-learning as a whole is nomore or less of a transformation than the one that takes place when knowledge ispackaged for conventional learning and disseminated in a physical classroom; itis, however, a different transformation, and that is what we are all in the throesof living through and researching.

We turn now to address the ‘learning’ side of the e-learning enterprise.

THE ‘LEARNING’ IN E-LEARNING

The second element in the ‘e-learning’ equation is learning itself. While this isnot the place for a consideration of the various theories of learning per se, it isnecessary to say briefly what we mean by learning. We recognize that there isalready much material on learning theory relevant to e-learning (e.g. work oncollaborative learning, Bruffee, 1993, and computer-supported collaborativelearning, Koschmann, 1996), and discussion of this and the nature of (e)learningwill take place in the chapters of the Handbook, particularly those on modes andmodels of learning, and communities of learning. Here we highlight four gen-eral aspects of learning.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

First, learning is a personal and social/political transformative act in whichnew knowledge is gained by the learner. The degree of transformation is criticalto the kinds of learning that will take place. For example, the learning of a newfact by rote may in itself constitute a fairly minor transformative function, andthus be seen as learning to a small degree (accretive, gradual, a step forward).However, at some point such a small step might afford a more extensive vista.The analogy is the poet Alexander Pope’s: that learning is like climbing a moun-tain, often in the mist. Steps are small, uphill, and hard work; but every now andagain larger vistas open up, each one more extensive than the last. When such anexpansive vista opens to the learner, the transformation can be said to be greater.The nature of the transformation can be purely intellectual, and/or it can be (acombination of) emotional, spiritual, physical.

Second, although learning is experienced by the individual, it is essentially aneffect of community: not only is knowledge generated and preserved by a commu-nity throughout history, it is also learnt as an effect of being part of a community(Bourdieu, 1986; Crook, 2002; Haythornthwaite, 2006 Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky,1986). Some of the knowledge will be tacit, some will be explicit. The kinds ofcommunities in which knowledge is made and transferred are varied: some arerelatively informal, like families and peer groups; others are institutionalized andformal like schools or universities. Knowledge is packaged differently in thesedifferent communities, and also gained and tested differently. It is one of themain preoccupations of the present Handbook to define and explore the elec-tronic communities in which e-learning takes place, considering them in relationto non-electronically mediated communities but also moving beyond a polarizeddistinction between online and offline communities to chart the new territory ofe-learning. Indeed, this latter topic is a major area for research in e-learning, boththeoretically and empirically.

Third, in order to distinguish it from experience, the transformative aspect oflearning takes place in relation to bodies of knowledge. This does not mean tosay that all knowledge is outside the learner because learning may take the formof enhanced self-knowledge; but it does mean that the learning is given defini-tion by the way it transforms the learner in relation to knowledge of some kind.Hence learning and knowledge are inextricably related. To be able to say ‘I nowknow that …’ is to acknowledge that learning stands in relation to what wasknown before by the individual learner and also in relation to what is known andrecognized as knowledge by a wider community.

Fourth, in keeping with the transformative and community aspects of learning,we add that knowledge is not simply delivered to a learner. The transformative actcreates new knowledge that is the product of a learner’s (or learners’) research andexploration in territory previously unrecognized or uncharted. But this journey isnot taken alone. New knowledge is tested against the world – the physical world,the social world, or the mental world of others’ ideas – and so modified throughpractice, discussion, use, and interaction (Cook and Brown, 1999; Engeström,


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

1999a, b). In this interaction we find the community action on learning as a wholeand knowledge development for all members of the community.

Of the four aspects of learning, it is probably the second – the nature andeffect of the community of learners – that is the most distinctive in an e-learningenvironment. It is here that notions of distance learning come to the fore (as theyhad already in extension classes in the late nineteenth century; and via corre-spondence courses, for example those of the UK’s Open University from the1970s). E-learning allows the learners that make up a community to be far-flungin terms of physical distance, but also, as discussed earlier in this introduction,to operate asynchronously as well as synchronously. The fact of physical dis-tance between learners and a lecturer/teacher, mediated by chat rooms, Weblogs, e-mail, and other forms of group communication, means that: interactioncan be recorded for future reference; learners operate largely from their comput-ers or mobile devices; that physicality is largely absent; text, image, and soundprovide the major modes through which communication happens; co-learners inthe community may never meet face-to-face; the learning experienced is not sit-uated in the physical, contextual ways we have come to expect; and contextsoutside the classroom probably play a larger part in the learning experience thanmight be the case in a traditional programme or course conducted on the prem-ise of regular, co-located, face-to-face meetings.

FROM ‘E’ + ‘LEARNING’ TO E-LEARNING

We have discussed the ‘e’ and ‘learning’ in e-learning, but this separation to dis-cuss the technical, computer-based means of delivery and social perspectives onlearning must now be recombined to consider the social and technological con-struct that is e-learning.

E-learning

E-learning is not a computer system. You cannot buy it off the shelf and plug it in.You cannot hand it to network administrators and be done with the job. To have ane-learning system means having people talking, writing, teaching, and learningwith each other online, via computer-based systems. While e-learning is usuallyfound implemented via a suite of software tools, such implementation is only thesurface of the e-learning environment. E-learning encompasses any and all meansof communication available to participants, from dedicated course managementsystems to late-night phone calls and e-mail in the early hours of the morning, frominstructor-prepared lectures to collaborative products generated through discussionboards, blogs and wikis. E-learning is a leaky system; it spreads to take advantageof any and all opportunities for communicating, learning, and seeking resources,and, like an invasive species, turns up in many places not traditionally associated


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

with formal instruction – the kitchen table, coffee shop, workplace, hotel room oncorner of the bedroom. Through instructor and student push-and-pull, e-learningcolonizes new technologies and new spaces, with each new generation of technolo-gies providing, but also creating demand for, new kinds of delivery (e.g. gamingenvironments, podcasting based on MP3 players, video streaming and mobilityinherent in cell and mobile phones, PDAs, and laptops).

The question then remains – what does define and distinguish e-learning?The HEFCE definition cited at the start of this chapter is a good starting place,but some modification is needed. E-learning needs to be more than the ‘use oftechnologies’ and it is more than a ‘communications and delivery tool … to sup-port students and improve the management of learning’. At its best, e-learning isa reconceptualization of learning that makes use of not only instructor-led peda-gogy but all the flexibility that asynchronous, multi-party contribution canbring. At its worst, e-learning is a substitution of one delivery mechanism foranother; but even such implementations will be overwhelmed by the demandsand expectations of users (both instructors and learners) and will changethrough social contracts, disuse, and idiosyncratic use. E-learning is continu-ously emergent, emanating from the possibilities of ICT in the hands ofadministrators, instructors, and learners, and created and recreated by use.2 Theforms and shapes of technology, learning, and technology-in-use for learningco-evolve, one pushing, pulling, and modifying the other.

This co-evolutionary view emphasizes the social and emergent nature of e-learning, i.e., the way people, operating with and through ICT, in communicationand interaction with others, form what e-learning means. This is the core of ourdefinition of e-learning. As such, it puts stand-alone learning programmes at theperiphery; although successful learning can result from computer-based learningsystems, such as self-paced tutorials, these are not centrally what e-learning isabout. Similarly, use of ICT for resource delivery is not e-learning even though itis part of the e-learning phenomenon, just as delivery of books is not teachingalthough library collections are part of the learning activity. Teaching and teachingpresence are essential parts of e-learning (Garrison and Anderson, 2003) and thuse-learning is more than delivery alone. Finally, e-learning is not (just) computer-mediated communication, in the same way that learning is not (just) conversation,although both are important in e-learning as a whole. The directed, purposefulpursuit of understanding, with resultant changes in knowledge, skill and/or prac-tice, are inherent in learning and thus also in e-learning.

E–learning is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon. Its scope includes theentirety of the social and technical system, from administrative decisions to systemsdevelopers, curriculum designers, and learners at the kitchen table. A range of edu-cational systems and practices falls within e-learning. Children and adolescents areaddressed in K-12/pre-school to senior high school/sixth-form online teaching andlearning, as in virtual high schools (e.g. Zucker et al., 2003); young and not-so-young adults are addressed through full- and part-time education in community


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

colleges, training colleges, post-secondary undergraduate and graduate pro-grammes. E-learning includes formally structured, degree-based programmes, aswell as non-degree, continuing education programmes in museums, art galleries andother locations; and in proprietary in-house corporate training systems.

E-learning may be implemented to take advantage of as many technologies aspossible, or only a few. Thus we include in e-learning single application addi-tions to traditional teaching, such as electronic voting systems that addinteractivity to large face-to-face lectures, online discussion added to on-campuscourses, and myriad other blended learning configurations. E-learning mayinvolve students and faculty geographically located on or off-campus, at a dis-tance from each other and campus, or distributed with no correspondingphysical campus. Distance may be as close as the local dormitory room, or asremote as thousands of miles away, from sites accessing the latest in Internetconnectivity to those with less than perfect networking capabilities. Indeed,defining the campus may be a challenge, not only for locating the physical homeof an online university, but also where rapidly emerging, multi-institutional pro-grammes include students enrolled from many different campuses.

Social processes and technology

Researchers have been examining the interplay of social processes and ICTs formany years, building on a foundation of study of social processes and workplaceinterventions that include the ‘time and motion’ studies by Taylor (1911), thewiring room group behaviour studies by Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) andthe longwall miners studies by Trist and Bamford (1951) and the Tavistockgroup. These studies laid a foundation for identifying the importance of contextin the presentation of technology in use and the recognition that similar tech-nologies will take dissimilar forms depending on the social, political, andinstitutional contexts in which they are implemented. This has become known asa ‘socio-technical systems’ approach. It is popular in management for jointlyoptimizing the social and technical systems in the workplace.

With the advent of computing, the socio-technical perspective became animportant approach for understanding changes in work practices brought aboutby the implementation of computer systems (see Whitworth’s chapter in thisvolume). As researchers looked at early computing systems they noted a numberof issues that still factor into contemporary uses and presentations of ICT. Theseare reviewed briefly here because the history of the progression of computersystems provides background to the kinds of processes seen in current systemsand helps tease out where effects of ICT on learning may be found.

Early computing systems were designed with the primary purpose ofautomating office processes, reproducing paper-based systems for the mainte-nance of records and automating the production of statistical reports. Terms like


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

‘electronic data processing’ captured the essence of these computing applica-tions. However, as Zuboff (1988) observed, these systems began to informate asthey automated. With the rise of computing also came a rise in the observabilityof processes; and then of systems to process these observations, including statis-tical analyses and benchmarking of human performance. Zuboff eloquentlydemonstrated the impact of this computerization on individuals at work. Clericalworkers who had worked in social groups now found themselves isolated atcomputer terminals, entering data on their own. Their productivity could now beassessed in terms of keystrokes. The social impact of this instance of computeri-zation was both the isolation of data entry personnel and increased monitoringof the minutiae of performance.

Technological determinists see such changes as the inevitable outcome oftechnology, with human activity shaped by the technologies that are imposed onthem. Others see technology use as more malleable and affected by strategies ofindividual or joint human action: strategies such as non-use, or more compli-cated appropriations of the technology to local contexts (Danziger et al., 1982;Rice and Rogers, 1980; Rogers, 1995; Rogers et al., 1977). These two sides areoften portrayed against each other – technology determining social behaviour, orsocial behaviour determining technology – with neither technology nor socialbehaviour changing. This approach to computing followed earlier work in man-agement trying to find the best task–technology fit, where the technology wasthe kind of organizational structure and process most appropriate for the manu-facturing task at hand (e.g. Thompson, 1967), taking into consideration thenature of the incoming raw materials and the needed transformation process tocreate outputs (Perrow, 1970) and the context in which the work took place (e.g.contingency theory, Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967).

This idea of looking for fit was transferred directly to examination of comput-ing implementations because the data management capabilities of informationtechnologies (IT) reconfigured organizational structures and processes. For awhile there was an effort to explore computer system–organization fit, includingcommunication–technology fit (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Trevino et al., 1990).Studies of fit in the computing arena are best summed up in notions of organiza-tional validity and invalidity, used to refer to how well the computing systemcorresponded to existing organizational structures and what could or should bedone about it (Markus and Robey, 1983; Noble and Newman, 1993). Noble andNewman (1993) in particular noted that where fit was not made, the system couldchange, the people could change, or both could change. The socio-technical sys-tems approach to computing emerges from this kind of observation: aligningsocial practices and technological support in the service of work outcomes is theessence of socio-technical systems evaluation, an approach that begins to makeheadway in thinking about systems design and implementation.

But, it is not enough to view the problem as one of accommodation, ofmaking technology ‘fit’ the social or vice versa, or even of simultaneous adjust-ment, in part because this assumes a knowing observer, and relatively stable and


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

identifiable social/technical conditions. However, the rapid development ofcomputing technology, at first the personal computer revolution and now themobile technology revolution, have pushed change ahead of planned fit, makingdevelopers out of users. Grass-roots movements such as Usenet, the Web andopen-source software show that systems and use have a general, societal-levelimplementation that is under the control of no one organization or entity. Newpractices are emerging at a societal level that influence what can be done, andwhat is expected, within any organization or institution.

A number of systems design approaches emerged during the 1980s and early1990s that have strongly influenced approaches to computerization. Theseinclude workplace studies that articulate everyday workplace processes, usingthis as input to systems design that better reflects actual practice (e.g. Luff et al.,2000; Suchman, 1987), participatory design that brings the user into the designprocess rather than leaving the process to systems specialists alone (also knownas user-centred design, e.g. see the work by Pelle Ehn, Morton Kyng) and sharedcognition, with its emphasis on joint processes of learning and collaboration(e.g. Engeström and Middleton, 1996; Resnick et al., 1991 and Whitworth inthis volume, who suggests that the social shaping of technology can be a con-tested process). Systems development has changed from a priori definition ofall operations in a sequence of systems analysis, design and implementation tomore responsive and flexible design techniques such as rapid prototyping andscenario-based design. Whole sectors of computer science have emerged toengage with human–computer issues, such as Human–Computer Interaction(HCI, or CHI) which centres on interface design (e.g. Nielsen, 1994; Carroll,2002), and Computer Supported Co operative Work (CSCW) with its attentionto systems for working jointly with others in and through online applications(e.g. Baecker, 1993; Bannon and Schmidt, 1991; Crabtree et al., 2005; Schmidtand Bannon, 1992; see also the proceedings of the CSCW and ECSCW(European) conferences). Research in Computer-Mediated Communication(CMC), which examines behaviour in and through computer media (for areview, see Herring, 2002), owes much of its heritage to the initiators of theCSCW field with their focus on understanding social processes and collabora-tive work on the way to designing support systems.

Examination of computing systems has also inherited from historical andsociological studies of technology, particularly in areas known as Social Studiesof Technology (SST), Social Studies of Science (SSS) and Social Constructionof Technology (SCOT). Work in this area is not limited to computers; some clas-sic work has looked at how the particular design of bicycles we know todaycame about (Bijker, 1995). These areas look more broadly at how science andtechnology are constructed in society, and how this works with, and affects,society. Reviewing this area is beyond the scope of this chapter, but the attentionthese researchers give to the shaping of technology is an important construct forconsidering the place and presentation of e-learning technologies, and should


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

prove a useful resource for researchers interested in this perspective. (For furtherreading, see, for example, Bijker et al., 1987; MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1985;Pinch and Bijker, 1984; Williams and Edge, 1996).

Collectively, these approaches have provided a more holistic view of systemsdevelopment: one that sees the social and technical sides of computerization notas two immutables in tension, but as two forces each shaping the other. As awhole, these new approaches to development and analysis of the unfolding ofsystems, plus the co-evolution of social and technical practices, are being gath-ered under the name social informatics.

Social informatics is one of two theoretical perspectives we find particularlyrelevant for e-learning. The other is rhetorical theory, which focuses on the rela-tion between speaker, audience, and subject matter. Both of these are discussedat length in the next section as we turn now to look at theories that inform an e-learning research agenda.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

As noted at the outset of this introduction, our aim here and in the followingchapters is to address the transformative effects of e-learning with a focus onresearch problems and challenges. In defining and building a research agendafor e-learning, it is necessary to find the theoretical base that informs evolvingprocesses in a rapidly advancing technological environment, yet also addressesthe kind of transformative activity that is entailed in e-learning and e-learningcommunities. Some key questions can be asked. What theories are useful forexamining and understanding e-learning? Where does e-learning research fit interms of theory? What are the parameters of the field? What are or will be ourtheories of e-learning? Is research conducted about the technology or via thetechnology – or both? These questions are essential for the conduct of researchprogrammes, whether at masters and doctoral level or in terms of larger-scalejoint research projects.

We make a start here on describing theoretical frameworks for e-learning. Wedo not attempt in this Handbook a ‘grand theory’ of e-learning, as we feel thatthe field is not in a sufficiently mature state for such theorizing; however, at theend of the section we present a number of questions that will help research movetoward an overarching theory (or theories) in the field. Other chapters in theHandbook continue this theoretical framing. There are yet more theories thatmay prove useful for understanding the e-learning phenomenon coming fromthe fields and sub-fields of education, information science, communication,computer science, management, psychology, and sociology, to name a few.While we begin the process here, we expect more and new theories to bebrought to bear on e-learning in the future.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

As far as the electronic dimension of the field goes, communications theoryand social informatics provide important perspectives. Communications theoryis not a coherent field with a competing and/or convergent set of theories under-pinning it. Rather, it draws on contemporary rhetorical theory and other sourcesto map out the nature and functions of the communicative acts that take place.Thus we begin with outlining the basics of rhetorical theory.

Rhetorical theory

Late twentieth-century thinking in the field of rhetoric sees it as an overarchingtheory that has a long tradition (Corbett, 1965), is grounded in historical and politi-cal change (Eagleton, 1983), has a pragmatic, Aristotelian pedigree rather than anidealist, Platonic one (Vickers, 1988), is centrally concerned with the arts of dis-course (Andrews, 1992) and, through ICT, is intimately connected with democracy(Lanham, 1992) and argumentation. Contemporary rhetoric is concerned with therelationship among three key elements: the speaker/writer, the audience, and thesubject matter. This communicative triangle (Kinneavy, 1971) enables explorationand definition of the purpose of the communicative act, as well as the possibility ofinvestigation of the means by which the communication takes place. A key term incontemporary rhetoric is dialogue, deriving from the Greek for throughspeech/logic rather than from any notion of two people speaking.

Rhetoric can be used to analyse communication once it has taken place andalso to predict (in ancient and medieval times, to prescribe) the patterns andmeans of communication that might be necessary in a particular situation.Behind such an understanding of the nature and purposes of communication isthe philosophy of Habermas (1984), with his theory of communicative actionand the function of argumentation (a subsection of rhetoric) in a society to bringabout consensus before action.

Why is rhetoric a useful foundation for considering what happens in e-learning?All e-learning is contextualized, as suggested earlier in this introduction with refer-ence to the work of Lave and Wenger (1991). It takes place in particular situations.Describing the contingencies and particularities of those situations is importantbecause not all e-learning acts are the same. E-learning varies the relationshipamong the elements of speaker/writer, audience, and the ‘thing to be communi-cated’. For example, a single teacher, lecturer, or course e-tutor may at one timeaddress a whole class of e-learners; at other times, the communication may be one-to-one; and at yet other times, a single e-learner may send a message to the class asa whole on a bulletin board or as part of an ongoing dialogue. While these patternsof communication are no different in some respects from their face-to-face ver-sions, the asynchrony available to e-learners potentially makes for a more reflectivedynamic. Critically, from the audience’s point of view in rhetorical theory, thereader/student/e-learner is more in control of the rhetorical process. Readers canchoose when and whether they will respond to others or to the communication.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Rhetorical theory has already been used as a platform for understandingonline communication. Studies have applied rhetorical concepts such as genresand discourse communities (Bakhtin, [1953] 1986; Frye, [1957] 1969; Miller,1984, 1994; Swales, 1990) to online communication (Bregman andHaythornthwaite, 2003; Cherny, 1999; Orlikowski and Yates, 1994; Yates andOrlikowski, 1992). Concepts such as speech–act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle1969) have been applied to the formalization of communicative action anddesign of communication systems (Flores et al., 1988; Malone et al., 1989;Winograd and Flores, 1986). However, this application has not been withoutcontroversy because of its overdetermination of actions (see Suchman, 1994;Winograd, 1994). Genre, rhetorical, and linguistic approaches also underpin thenew rhetoric of persistent conversation (Erickson, 1999), which situates onlinecommunication somewhere between speech and writing.

Thus, rhetorical theory, with its basis in purposive communication and itsrecent application to communication via ICTs, is an important starting point forapplying theory to e-learning. In what follows, we draw on Kinneavy’s communi-cation triangle as a basis for exploring e-learning. The discussion shows how thesimple triangle of interaction between speaker, audience, and communication,when considered in relation to evolutionary processes of language, technologyand purpose, shows a dynamic system, modified and modifiable by communica-tors’ actions. The ideas echo those of others who point to the emergent nature ofcommunication and technology use in group settings (e.g. Poole and DeSanctis’s(1990) ideas of adaptive structuration which builds on Giddens’s (1984) structura-tion theory; see also Monge and Contractor, 1997; Orlikowski, 1992).

To explore the emergent nature of communication in e-learning, we start withKinneavy’s (1971) basic notion of the communicative triangle, which is depictedin Figure 1.1: An adaptation of Kinneavy’s model for e-learning (Figure 1.2)adds elements associating the writer/speaker with the teacher, the audience withthe learners, and the body of knowledge with the ‘substance of communication’or the ‘thing to be communicated’.


It, the substanceof communication

I, the speaker,writer

You, the listener,audience

Figure 1.1 Kinneavy’s (1971) model of communication

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

In this adapted model, learning is conceived as a dialogic and dialecticalexchange, not only between the learner and the teacher, but also between thelearner and the body of knowledge that is being explored. Whereas, in Kinneavy’soriginal model, the ‘audience’ was relatively passive; in this model the learner asaudience is in a more powerful, active position in relation to the social dynamicsof learning. He/she can even critique the teacher’s mediation of existing knowl-edge, as indicated by the box in the middle of the communicative triangle.Furthermore, he/she is part of a community of enquiry with other learners.

This model not only retains the communicative element in e-learning, butprovides a way of understanding how the individual learner positions him/her-self in relation to a community of learners, a teacher/lecturer, and a body ofknowledge. The communicative dimension of e-learning is an essential founda-tion to studies in the field. Moreover, although the model might just as wellapply to learning, the asynchronous possibilities of exchange between learnerand teacher, and between learner and co-learners, enables reflection to becomean integrated part of the actual dialogic interaction between the participantswhile in the process of learning. Such reflection is possible in a conventional,face-to-face classroom, but the immediacy of the classroom environment and itsmany contextual cues – lecturer at the head of the class, students in desks,black/whiteboards and projectors, the presence of other students – and our natu-ral reluctance to tolerate silence in face-to-face settings weigh against reflectionduring class sessions. But asynchronous communication as well as synchronouscomputer-mediated communication provides and tolerates a much longer lagbetween question and response, an expectation of silence, and a lack of visualscrutiny while thinking, all of which affords reflection in the learning process.

Another aspect of communication theory that might be helpful in understand-ing the use of language in e-learning is that made by Austin (1962) in How to


The substance ofthe communication:

knowledge

Potential for critiqueof mediation by

the teacher

Mediation of thesubstance of

communication(knowledge) by

the teacher

Asynchronous and interactivecommunication; transformation

of knowledge into learningThe teacher/writer/speaker

The learner/audience/listener

Other learners

Interrogation ofthe substance

of communication(knowledge) by

the learner

Figure 1.2 Adaptation of Kinneavy’s (1971) model

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Do Things with Words, where he makes the distinction between locutionaryspeech acts – ‘sayings’ – and illocutionary acts (and their perlocutionary effects)in which language performs an ‘action’ or ‘does something’. Although the dis-tinction itself was critiqued by Searle (1969), it remains a potentially useful onein that it enables distinctions to be drawn between different types of languageuse in e-learning. For example, there is a distinct difference between online syn-chronous ‘chat’ on the one hand, which has a social as well as communicativefunction, and asynchronous dialogic exchange on the other, where there is lessemphasis on the social and there may be less attention on the building of a co-constructed understanding of a particular phenomenon. There is considerablepotential for studies in speech-act theory and e-learning in that the ‘map’ ofcommunication exchanges in e-learning is yet to be fully charted.

Furthermore, Kinneavy’s adapted model or other theoretical attempts to chartcommunication in relation to e-learning can be further adapted in order to betterdescribe, explain, and analyse the rhetorical dimensions of e-learning. There aremany research projects to be undertaken here and there is much exciting work tobe done.

Social informatics

Social informatics refers to the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses, and consequencesof ICTs that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts.

(Kling et al., 2005: 6)

Social informatics provides another theoretical foundation for addressing e-learning, deriving not so much from rhetoric and communication theory as fromthe sociology of contemporary culture, particularly where it intersects with com-puting use by groups, organizations, communities, and societies. A few studiesof e-learning using this perspective are just beginning to appear (e.g. Dutton etal., 2004; see also Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, 2004).

Many fields contribute to the social informatics perspective. Sociology has pro-vided background pertinent to the study of information systems and e-learning instudies and theories about diffusion and adoption of innovations (Rogers, 1995),social construction and social shaping of technology (e.g. MacKenzie andWajcman, 1985; Williams and Edge, 1996), activity theory (Engeström andMiddleton, 1996), social networks (Wellman and Berkowitz, 1997) and actor net-works (Latour, 1987). Perhaps not as well integrated into social informatics, but ofparticular importance to e-learning is work on literacy, particularly online literacy(Andrews, 2004; Hawisher and Selfe, 1999), language (Clark, 1996; Crystal,2001), linguistics (e.g. Cherny, 1999; Herring, 2002) and genre (Bregman andHaythornthwaite, 2003; Orlikowski and Yates, 1994). Also important are many dif-ferent approaches to community from social network definitions (Wellman, 1979,


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

1999) to discourse communities (Miller, 1994; Warschauer, 2000), knowledgecommunities (e.g. Collins, 1998; Knorr-Cetina, 1999) and communities of practice(Wenger, 1998). Studies in sociology, linguistics and communication have con-tributed to our understandings of community and its manifestation online (Baym,2000; Cherny, 1999; Haythornthwaite et al., 2000; Kendall, 2002; Warschauer,2003; Wellman, 1997; Wellman et al, 1996), as well as how offline communitiesare affected by online interaction (in studies of community networking initiativesand an area of research now often referred to as community informatics, e.g.Bishop, 2000; Cohill and Kavanaugh, 2000; Keeble and Loader, 2001 see also thestudies in Wellman and Haythornthwaite, 2002).

New systems of social relationships

These many studies and theories share a common focus on the way new tech-nologies change social interaction: with new language, meeting places, means ofmeeting, and meaning of associations. Castells (2001), for example, argues that‘a new system of social relationships centred on the individual’ (p. 128) isemerging, in which the individual creates his or her own individualized commu-nities in a society which creates emphasis on the individual through therelationship between capital and labour, between workers and the work process,and ‘the crisis of patriarchism, and the subsequent disintegration of the nuclearfamily’ (p. 129). Although individual networks have existed for a long time, sup-ported through letters, travel by car and plane, and the telephone (Wellman,1979, 1999), the Internet in particular has been cited as supporting (and creat-ing) such individualized sociability (Wellman, 2002; Wellman et al., 1996;Wellman et al., 2003), with consequent positive or negative effects (e.g. Kraut,et al., 1998; Kraut, Kiesler et al., 2002; for a review, see Haythornthwaite andWellman, 2002). The Internet is effective in maintaining weak ties and perhapsalso instrumental in creating the space or the opportunities in which strong tiescan be made stronger (Haythornthwaite, 2005). Online communities, suggestsCastells (2001), ‘are better understood as networks of sociability, with variablegeometry and changing composition, according to the evolving interests ofsocial actors and to the shape of the network itself ’ (p. 130). (For a review ofsocial networks and online community, see Haythornthwaite, forthcoming-b.)

Although Castells (2001) does not address issues of e-learning per se in hisbook, the implications for networked communities of learners are clear: e-learningcommunities are social communities of a different kind from conventional learningcommunities, which may allow the individual to assert him- or herself more at thecentre of a range of networks. Although the individual and his or her learning aredefined by those networks, it is also the case that he or she defines the networks. Anumber of e-learning researchers have begun to examine networked aspects of tiesbuilt in association with e-learning (e.g. Aviv et al., 2003; Cho et al., 2002;Haythornthwaite, 2002a, b; Hrastinski, 2006; Saltz et al., 2004). These studies holdpromise as a theoretical platform on which to build e-learning research.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Exploring the nature of e-learning communities, Haythornthwaite and Kazmer(2002), in presenting findings about on- and offline relations for e-learning, dis-cuss the claims and counter-claims that the Internet both ‘reduces involvementwith those whom we share strong, local, interpersonal ties, taking us away fromface-to-face involvement and potentially decreasing our well-being’ and also ‘isseen as providing the means for increased contact with others’ (p. 434), for exam-ple with those with whom we share an interest, such as co-learners in a distancelearning programme. They argue that often each side of the argument has beensimplified, the truth of the matter being in elaborately textured networks of strongand weak ties that change in time (weak ones faster than strong ones). The Internetis seen, not so much as a social world, ‘but as a medium through which we havethe opportunity to maintain our multiple social worlds’ (p. 442).

Scott and Page (2001) see learning communities as ‘social spaces, physicaland/or virtual, within which users are invited or enabled to engage in a sharedlearning process, while respecting the diversity of their knowledge base’ (2001:152). If, as Scott and Page suggest, learners in such an environment ‘are encour-aged to set their own learning goals’ (2001: 152) and if such networks encourageand support individualism, then there are interesting questions to be asked aboutthe nature of the common experience of e-learners: in particular, can it be saidthat an e-learning programme can set such goals itself, or should it err on theside of the individuals setting their own goals? As ever, some kind of balancehas to be struck; it may be important to determine exactly what the possibilitiesof balance are in any e-learning context. Loader (1997) provides further discus-sion of the governance of cyberspace. One of the many interesting aspects ofthat discussion pertains to notions of information polity or informationality,with clear connections to the nature and accessibility of knowledge, its location(on- or offline) and its use. Mere accessing of information may not, in itself, beakin to learning; some transformation of the material into new knowledge forthe individual must, we think, take place if such activities are to be called ‘e-learning’. Thus the term ‘e-learning’ becomes something greater than the sum ofits parts, inviting research and examination in terms of an independent phenom-enon rather than a re-purposed version of offline learning.

From social informatics to educational informatics

Extending the principles of social informatics into the learning sphere leads logi-cally to the adoption of the term educational informatics, as Levy et al. (2003)have done. They define the domain of educational informatics as: ‘the study of theapplication of digital technologies and techniques to the use and communication ofinformation in learning and education’ (p. 299) and the main concerns as twofold:

First, research in educational informatics seeks to understand the effects on people of usingdigital information (re)sources, services, systems, environments and communications mediafor learning and education. It examines the issues and problems that arise from their


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

practice and how these relate to factors such as educational and professional context, com-munication and information practices, psychological and cognitive variables, and ICT designand use. Second, it seeks to contribute to the development of practical knowledge that isrelevant to diverse forms of ICT-supported learning.

(Levy et al., 2003: 299)

In reviewing how computer systems have been received, there are many parallelsin the receipt of learning technologies. For instance, unquestioned technologicalor social deterministic views hold back an effective transformation to e-learn-ing. Teachers may avoid online teaching because they feel constrained by thetechnology (a technological determinist view, resisted through non-use), or theymay come online expecting to transfer existing teaching practices wholesale tothe online enterprise (a social determinist view, expecting no change in theirpedagogy). But neither approach serves the long-term interests of educators andneither approach can be maintained for long. In the former case, student use anddemand for technology plus campus initiatives to ‘keep up’ with the technologyuse of other campuses will remove the option of non-use for teachers; and in thelatter case, as has been shown from many studies, simple transfer from offline toonline does not make good pedagogy – teachers interested in good pedagogylearn to modify their practices in accordance with the online environment.

There are parallels in the way computerization automates and informates e-learning in the same way it has done for other operations. Formerly transient andephemeral processes are now routinely recorded as part of the delivery process.Conversations, discussions and lectures that remain in digital records facilitateasynchronous participation, but their persistence also allows interrogation andreview. They create a source of information about the course progress and con-duct. As Berge (1997: 15) notes, an ‘interesting line of research involves the factthat computer conferencing programs can produce complete transcripts of allinteractions they have mediated. These transcripts are a rich data source.’Beyond research, however, they are also an interesting source of data for moni-toring, accountability and benchmarking.

Paralleling the concerns described by Zuboff of workers cut off from humancontact (see also Kraut et al., 1998, for similar concerns about Internet use),many conceive of e-learning as an individual working alone at their computer.What is different now is that the isolated student is just as likely to be carryingon conversations with many others via class discussion boards, e-mail and whis-pering, moulding and forming the communication dialogue they prefer. Invisibleto the outside observer is the communication that goes on between students, andbetween students and instructors, as the student sits ‘alone’ at their terminal, aswell as the actions they take to initiate and sustain that interaction. Perhaps nowwe should say that computers automate, informate, and ‘communicate’ (in thesense that computers facilitate communication). The turn from HCI to CSCWmarks a turn from humans interacting with computers to interacting with others


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

through computers, an observation made early in relation to education in a col-lection of papers concerned with computer-supported collaborative learning(CSCL; O’Malley, 1989). In that volume, Bannon connects ideas from CSCWwith CSCL, describing the computer’s role ‘as a medium through which individ-uals and groups can collaborate with others’ (Bannon, 1989: 271; see alsoCrook, 1989; Kaye, 1991, 1995). These interests in collaboration have led to thedevelopment of more all-embracing systems developments for supportingknowledge work, such as collaboratories (also known as collaborative virtualenvironments, Finholt, 2002) which lead naturally to the idea of collaborativelearning and collaborative learning environments (Lunsford and Bruce, 2001).

Bringing together rhetorical and social/educational informatics perspectives

If rhetorical theory and social/educational informatics provide some theoreticalbasis to the field, what are the field’s parameters? How do we know what isincluded and what is excluded from research in e-learning? Our answer comesfrom one aspect of discourse theory that itself derives from sociological theory:the notion of framing. Put simply, any research study needs to be framed insome way: it needs to define its boundaries, state what area it intends to coverand provide a ‘map’ (literature review) of the field.

Tannen (1993), in Framing in Discourse, traces the concept of framing back toBateson’s ‘A theory of play and fantasy’ ([1954] 1972). Bateson, she suggests,‘demonstrated that no communicative move, verbal or nonverbal, could be under-stood without reference to a metacommunicative message, or metamessage, aboutwhat is going on – that is, what frame of interpretation applies to the move’ (p. 3).The notion of framing – itself deriving metaphorically from the framing of paint-ings in the visual arts or other forms of art, like theatre and its framed spaces – hasbeen taken up by researchers in communication and psychology, anthropology,and most notably in sociology in Goffman’s Frame Analysis (1974). As far as rhet-oric and the arts of discourse go, it is a central organizing principle ofcommunication. (See also Engeström and Middleton, 1996, on activity theory andcomplex systems theory.) Frames are systemic (political assumptions, ideologies,historical tendencies), concrete (a school, other institutions), genre-based (sociallyhabitual forms of communication, like debates, conversations) as well as ‘insidethe head’ – a kind of cultural programming. Frames can be transgressed as well asobserved. They can also be imposed by others. Such imposition can be madedirectly or through technologies and/or organizational structures which make it lit-erally impossible to do things in certain ways.

In terms of the field of e-learning research, what frames are brought to bear inits interpretation? We could posit these as technical, sociological and pedagogical.Technically, there now appears to be no limit to what is possible in terms of con-nectivity. Wireless connection, access grid technology, and broadband Internet


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

connection allow multimodal communication between two or more people. Thereis the possibility of synchronous and asynchronous communication, albeit withoutphysicality and with the constraints of access to equipment, networks and thetechnical skill required to make such connection reliably. Sociologically, the dis-persed, sometimes international nature of communities of enquiry makes fordistributed learning, often more informally than has been the case in the past.Pedagogically, the teacher comes and goes in the class – a presence which co-ordinates, directs, supports, and challenges the learners. It could be said that therelation between teacher and learner has the potential to be equalized in e-learning, with authoritative, canonical positions adopted by teachers less likely tobe accepted by learners; on the other hand, anecdotal evidence suggests that ateacherly presence and/or leadership is important for sustaining the group.Whatever the precise and specific dynamic of an e-learning community, thenature and power (and extent) of networks becomes more telling and more influ-ential in the nature of the actual learning that takes place. Rogoff (1990) hassuggested that ‘learning is an effect of community’; that is, what we learn is aread-off or affordance of being part of a community, whether that community is aschool, family, street corner, club, society or looser group of friends. Essentially,without a community of some sort, the learning that arises from involvement in itcannot take hold. Community, therefore, is a sine qua non of learning. To adaptRogoff’s (1990) phrase for the twenty-first century and in particular for e-learn-ing, learning becomes an effect of computer networked communities rather thanan effect of local, geographical community.

It is exactly at the point where questions are asked about networked commu-nities of practice that current theory in e-learning begins to break down.Questions that suggest themselves for future work include: What do we mean bya community of enquiry? How do e-communities relate to situated, real-worldcommunities? (see Kazmer, this volume) What kinds of community experienceare best suited to high-quality learning? Where and what are the boundariesbetween being, and acting in the world, and learning? What could an ecology oflearning mean, and, once defined, how would e-learning fit into it?

A central theme emerging from such questions is the relationship between thesocial control of learning and individual agency in learning. From the identificationof such a theme – one that is not confined to e-learning, but which applies to learn-ing more generally – further questions arise. When engaged in e-learning, what areyou learning? Whose model of learning and whose selection of knowledge are youadopting? What are the unexpected consequences of the drive for e-learning initia-tives, such as the continued exclusion of non-ICT users? What is the digital divide(see Haythornthwaite, this volume) in terms of access to and use of ICT in learning?

This is a short list of questions, and there is much scope for examination. Assaid above, this is an exciting time to be exploring this phenomenon. To help inthat exploration, we turn now from theoretical considerations to issues ofmethodology and method.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES FOR E-LEARNING RESEARCH

Methodologically, e-learning research requires inventive approaches. The com-plexity of e-learning situations cannot always be easily described, let aloneinvestigated and analysed. In this section, we explore some of the difficulties offinding the right methodology (overall approach) and methods (techniques) forresearching e-learning; we also propose some possible solutions. In particular,we are concerned to point out that conventional approaches to research in educa-tion may not be adequate to the task in hand; and that finding appropriatemethodologies may be more important than discovering new methods. Morespecifically, we think that one-way models of research (the simple causal modelin which an intervention has an effect on an existing state of affairs) and two-way models (‘there is a symbiotic relationship between technologies andlearning’) need to give way to reciprocal co-evolutionary models of the relation-ship between the ‘e-’ and ‘learning’ in e-learning research. In order todemonstrate an emerging model, we will use the specific case of research intothe relationship between ICT and literacy education, scaling up the model toapply to research into e-learning.

One of the problems with research in education – and it no doubt applies toother fields of enquiry too, and to research in particular disciplines – is that theobject of research is often framed too simply. To put it more precisely, the objectof research is conceived of as a single entity that is affected or influenced by oneor more factors or variables. Such a single entity is often the focus of whatevermethod or methods is/are used to understand it and to shed light on it.

Whichever approach we take, the problem of a single entity on which we arefocusing remains. It is, perhaps, a vestige of what is assumed to be a ‘scientific’approach to the investigation of a single entity – something we try to isolate, bycontrolling variables, in order to understand it. However, conceiving of e-learn-ing situations in terms of their singularity will not help us progress far inresearch terms, because the very nature of e-learning is enmeshed within socialand informational contexts of the kind we have described in the theoretical sec-tion of this introduction.

To explain our emerging sense of what is needed in e-learning research, westart with the example of studies of the relationship between ICTs and literacydevelopment. We suggest that the lessons learnt from trying to interrogate thisrelationship at the level of literacy development can be scaled up to apply tolearning in general and thus provide a more powerful methodological model forthe future of e-learning research.

The remainder of the introduction articulates a model for examining e-learning that incorporates elements of rhetorical, communication, and socialinformatics theories. This model has been developed by Andrews, and was firstpresented at conferences in 2005 (Andrews, 2005a, b).


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Modelling e-learning processes

If we are interested in the effectiveness of a particular intervention – say the com-puter interface – on some educational outcome – say learning development for5–16 year olds, or for undergraduate students – we could set up a controlledexperiment in which we try to isolate and measure the impact of the interventionfrom effects from all other variables. Or we could study the case of a single pupil,or a group of pupils, or the equivalent at undergraduate level and undertake aholistic study in which we embraced all the variables or factors that were at play inorder to get a better understanding of what was going on with our particular case.In the former approach, the methodology is exclusive; in the latter, it is inclusive.

What most researchers and reviewers of research have been asking to date inthe field of ICT and literacy education in schools is ‘What is the impact of ICTon literacy development?’ When it has been hard to pin down exactly what ismeant by ‘impact’, researchers have narrowed the aperture to ask a more precisequestion: ‘What is the effect (or effectiveness) of ICT on literacy development?’and thus narrowed the attention to controlled trials, and randomized controlledtrials where they can be found (see Andrews, 2004; Andrews et al., 2002;Andrews et al., 2005; Burn and Leach, 2004; Locke and Andrews, 2004; Lowand Beverton, 2004: Torgerson and Zhu, 2003). Rather than discuss this andother research, we will depict the progress from the one-way model of researchmethodology – which we now find too limited for our purposes – to a dialecticand longitudinal model that is appropriate for the study of e-learning in highereducation and other contexts. The progress from conventional approaches tocause–effect study through to a new model is depicted through stages.

In the stage depicted in Figure 1.3 the relationship between an intervention (x)and the phenomenon which it affects or has impact on (y) is basically causal; x isassumed to be unchanging, but its arrival on the scene, its presence, its actionsmake a difference to y. Most studies in the field of ICT and literacy educationhave used this model in the 1980s and 1990s and indeed into the first part of thetwenty-first century. In fact, most short-term evaluations are of this nature (ofwhich there have been many in the field of ICT’s impact on literacy and otheraspects of education since 1980 or so; see Tweddle, 1997). The most reliable andhighly controlled experiments of this kind are randomized controlled trials, which,by controlling for wayward variables and randomizing participants to experimen-


x y

Figure 1.3 One-way model of causality. This model assumes the impact oreffect on x and y. It assumes that, although y is affected by x, x remainsunchanged

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

tal and control groups, can claim to say something about the causal relationshipbetween x and y. Discussions of the nature and complexity of causality are oftenput aside in such research projects, as they would interfere with what looks like arelatively simple model. We all know this model: it is one of a number of defaultmodels in educational research, often removing considerations of context from astudy in order to identify an internal and single causal relationship.

While the one-way model provides a starting point, neither life nor learningstops after one interaction. Thus, we build on to the one-way model a reaction orsimultaneous action of y on x. Figure 1.4 shows that the relationship between xand y is complicated by the fact that the reaction of y may have a bearing upon x.This relationship can be described as symbiotic, in that the two parties or enti-ties affect each other, with each adapting to the other’s characteristics. It is atwo-way process; indeed, each party comes to depend on the other. For example,the advent of word-processing software may have affected writing practices, butwriting practices in turn have affected word-processing programmes. Word-processing software has evolved from its earlier simplicity to include featurespermitting tracking changes, adding editorial comments, and reformatting docu-ments. But such features do not entirely arise from the technology; they werepractised by scribes in the medieval period and are part of writing process prac-tice that re-emerged in the work of Graves (1983) and others (e.g. Andrews andNoble 1982) in the early 1980s. In this case, writing practices have had a back-wash or informing effect on software design, thus enabling the inclusion oftracking and other editorial devices in the word-processing packages.

Co-evolutionary modelThe model depicted in Figure 1.4 is closest to what Haas (1996) calls the symbi-otic relationship between ICT and development. This acceptance of a two-wayprocess in the interaction between ICT and learning, in our model, can be scaledup to a two-way process in understanding the relationship between any two phe-nomena, as long as there is some degree of mutability in both phenomena.


x y

Figure 1.4 Two-way model. This model assumes there is some kind ofdialogic relationship between x and y. In other words, although x may affecty, it may also be the case that y affects x – perhaps to the same degree, orperhaps to a lesser extent (or even, possibly, to a greater extent). In studiesin literacy development the relationship has been described as ‘symbiotic’ byHaas (1996)

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

However, symbiosis is not the appropriate term to characterize the relation-ship between ICT and learning development, nor any scaled-up dialecticalrelationship between mutable phenomena. The problem is that symbiosis isessentially conservative, i.e., a symbiotic relationship is one where the two par-ties try to preserve and conserve the equilibrium that they have reached. Suchconservatism clearly isn’t the case with the relationship between ICT and learn-ing, nor in most dialectical, developmental situations. So, in order to reflectmore accurately what goes on between the two phenomena, it is necessary tomove towards a model that biologists call ‘reciprocal co-evolution’.

For the moment, let us concentrate on the internal dynamics of the relation-ship, though it is obvious that there are external factors at play in bringing aboutchange in ICT and in learning. Figure 1.5 introduces a temporal dimension intothe relationship. In research terms, it would be characterized as longitudinal. Inthe fast-changing world of information and communication technology, whatcounts as standard one year is not the same as what is standard a year or twolater. If we compared 1980 with 1990, and then with 2000 and 2010, for exam-ple, we would register considerable change in the ICT field, not only in terms ofwhat is available, but also in the degree of accessibility to that technology.Similarly, what counts as learning also changes (though more slowly) and edu-cational changes – in curricula, classroom design, social practices withinschooling, etc. – tend to follow even more slowly. Rather than complicate themodel at this point, the educational contexts and the individual growth of thelearner are left out, though they clearly have a bearing on the learning that takesplace and they also change over time.

Thus, methodologically, any study of the relationship between ICT and learningneeds a dialectical as well as a temporal dimension if it is to give a full account ofthe relationship. Figure 1.6 depicts the fact that a new state of affairs has comeabout – which we have called ICT 2 and Learning 2. There is not only a new ‘two-way’ or quasi-symbiotic relationship between the two phenomena, but there are also


ICT 2

ICT 1

Learning 2

Learning 1

Figure 1.5 Co-evolutionary model, stage 1. Both ICT and learning changein time. What counts for ICT in 1990 is different by the year 2000, and againdifferent in 2010. Similarly, what counts as being a learner also changes.

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

backwash or delayed influences, indicated by the diagonal arrows. For example, theuse of Microsoft’s PowerPoint as a presentational tool was extensive in the first partof the first decade of the twenty-first century, even though other presentation soft-ware or approaches were available (e.g. through the creation of a Web site with hotspots to reveal information, using hypertextual principles). As individuals ‘discov-ered’ PowerPoint and added it to their repertoire they operated at different levels:plain slide presentations using given templates; the creation of individual and/orcorporate templates; the introduction of images; the introduction of moving imagesand/or sound; the creation of hot spots to automate links to Web sites. Presentersoften back up their electronic presentations with acetate slides for an overhead pro-jector. ‘New’ technologies and practices, like presentation through a Web site orPowerPoint, thus backwash on to older technologies and practices.

Such residuality, backwash, and consolidation are important both for ICTdevelopment and for learning development. As suggested earlier in this intro-duction, residual technologies take their place in relation to new forms oflearning rather than being replaced by them, creating a new economy in commu-nicative and educational practices. To put it another way: old technologies andpractices don’t necessarily disappear as new technologies come along. They areabsorbed, added to, or find their place, rather than being replaced. Their place isdetermined by the economies of use: the key rhetorical principle of what is orare the best medium/media of communication in any particular situation and setof circumstances. So, as indicated in Figure 1.6, ICT 1 may have effects andimpacts on Learning 2 and (perhaps to a lesser extent) vice versa. The emergentcomplexity of the model is shown in Figure 1.7.


ICT 2

ICT 1

Learning 2

Learning 1

Figure 1.6 Co-evolutionary model, stage 2. Both ICT and learning changein time, but so do the learners as they grow up and develop. A new‘symbiosis’ is established at ICT 2 and Learning 2; but there are alsoresidual influences

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

The diagonal effects can also be from an advanced state of ICT development inrelation to less advanced states of learning development, as shown in Figure 1.8.Here we have the almost fully-fledged model describing the complex of relation-ships between two entities that are both developing in time. The figure also


ICT 2

ICT 1

Learning 2

Learning 1

ICT 3 Learning 3

Figure 1.7 Co-evolutionary model, stage 3

ICT 2

ICT 1

Learning 2

Learning 1

ICT 3 Learning 3

Figure 1.8 Co-evolutionary model, stage 4

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

suggests that each of the entities brings a history with it and that both are likely tocontinue changing into the future. To put it another way: every new form of ICTruns through old ways of use until new forms – many of them hybrid – are found.

The value of the co-evolutionary model is that it can provide a framework forstudies in ICT and development of learning practices. While research studiesmay concentrate on only one aspect of the model – for example, the effect ofICT 1 on Learning 1 – such limited study needs to be placed within a bigger pic-ture, without making claims that would apply to the whole of the relationshipbetween the two entities.

In broad methodological terms, the co-evolutionary model posited here goesbeyond simplistic notions of causality and introduces a temporal dimension. Inresearch methods terms, the model suggests the need for an approach that ismore able to describe and analyse such a dialectical relationship. Although it isnot possible to explore all possibilities in detail in this introduction, oneapproach that looks useful is cross-lagged panel analysis (or cross-lagged paneldesign; Oud, 2002). This approach was first mooted by Lazarsfeld (Lazarsfeld,1940; Lazarsfeld and Fiske, 1938). It has been used more recently to study thereciprocal relationship between parenting and adolescent problem-solvingbehaviour (Rueter and Conger, 1998). There is room for further exploration ofthe applicability and worth of cross-lagged panel designs in educationalresearch, in particular in paying attention to the problem of how continuous (andsometimes erratic) development can be adequately mapped in staged analyses ofreciprocity. This standard approach to dynamic phenomena in natural sciencecould be used to explore the relationship between ICT and learning with the useof qualitative as well as quantitative data.

Before we leave this model, however, there is one further consideration to takeinto account: that these phenomena – ICT development and use – do not take placein a vacuum and are in themselves phenomena affected by and affecting context.

Adding societal context

To complete the model, we need to take into account something that has arisenalready in systematic reviews of the relationship between ICT and literacy/learn-ing development, i.e. neither ICT nor literacy/learning is a simple entity in itself(see, for example, Cope and Kalantzis, 2000, on multiliteracies). Similarly,learning is not a self-contained entity, but instead is heavily influenced by local,regional, national, and international contexts. To take ICT: the term itself coversa multitude of different technologies and modes of communication. Whenresearchers take ‘ICT’ as one of their points of reference, they take much forgranted. Are they talking about desktop computer interfaces and their use, or arethey talking about the same software interfaces being used on a laptop, palmtopor via mobile phone? Are moving images, as experienced in the cinema, athome, or in the classroom, included or excluded from the definition of ICT?


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Such considerations suggest the need for another dimension of classification –what biologists refer to as a phylogeny of the field. A phylogeny of e-learningwould track the historical/longitudinal and taxonomic progress of ICT andlearning (separately) and then show at what points they converge. The nearestanalogy outside Biology is probably the ‘family tree’ model. We have not spacein this introduction to create such a phylogeny, but invite future researchers todo so. Such a phylogeny would have the advantage of defining exactly the socialand political provenance of a particular aspect of e-learning, distinguishing itfrom other related activities that might otherwise be confused with it.

Similarly, contexts of family, educational and social policy, economic fundingand international competition affect the learning context; and technologyadvances, networking infrastructures and ICT developments constitute andaffect the e-learning context. In the light of these considerations, the co-evolu-tionary model depicted above needs to be extended to accommodate widercontexts. Figure 1.9 presents a version of a co-evolutionary contextual modelthat can act as a starting point for theoretical models of research in e-learning ingeneral. The new model shows how factors external to the internal dynamics ofthe model need to be taken into account when investigating phenomena like ICTand learning. These include factors that determine the changing nature of ICT,like economic, design and scientific factors; the changing nature of electroniccommunities; and the determinants of longitudinal growth.


ICT 2

ICT 1

Learning 2

Learning 1

ICT 3 Learning 3

What factorsaffect the

developmentof ICT?

What kinds ofe-communities

are createdand how are

they sustained?

What factorsaffect learningdevelopment,irrespective

of ICT?

How doindividualsrelate to

communitiesof learning

(family, school,street, clubs,

societies, etc.)?

What are thedeterminants of

longitudinal growth?

Figure 1.9 Co-evolutionary contextual model

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


Clearly a conclusion at this point in time would be inappropriate for a develop-ing, exploratory model. Better approaches for the time being are: to critique theproposed model itself; to look for ways of testing the efficacy of the model’spower to explain; and to ask questions of its scalability.

In the sense that the model itself is predicated on a dialectical principle, there isprobably scope for its use. Not only horizontal and diagonal effects are equally orunevenly reciprocated, but vertical ones might also exist which describe theadvances made from one state to another for a particular phenomenon. These ves-tigial or residual elements might be investigated in themselves. They aredevelopmental and diachronic, as opposed to synchronic. The opportunity fordialectical interaction between states/snapshots of development is full of potential.

To sum up: the vertical axes represent change in time. We can research theseby identifying points in time at which measures will be taken of the state oftechnological development or the state of learning (whether the latter is a partic-ular age group growing over a number of years, or a cohort changing over ashort period of time) and by modelling the changes alongside each other. Thehorizontal axes represent the causal and symbiotic relationships between the twoentities. The diagonal axes represent residual and predicted changes as a resultof interaction between the two entities.

Research studies in the field of e-learning may not explore every axis, nor eachparticular link in the structure, but by referring to a larger picture of reciprocal co-evolution between ICT and learning, may be able to position themselves moreclearly and accurately in a complex and intra-related field of enquiry.

A FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING EMERGENT PROCESSES IN E-LEARNING

The model of emergent processes described above, and the social informaticsresearch perspective, both draw our attention to the way e-learning is itself anemergent process. While some view it as a new delivery mechanism for educa-tion, and others view it as a new pedagogical challenge, what that delivery lookslike and what frames the pedagogical challenge emerges from the interplaybetween new educational strategies, new teaching approaches, new technolo-gies, and new participants in this endeavour. A key need for e-learning researchis, then, to consider how this phenomenon unfolds in educational settings.Emergent, socio-technical change is not random. Knowing what is likely toinfluence the changing face of e-learning lets us predict, and, indeed, shape itsfuture form – though these forms are going to be adapted on the ‘shop floor’ andin individual contexts. As a final presentation in this introduction, the followingframework and its examples are offered as a beginning to exploration of the co-evolutionary developments in e-learning.

In grappling with the complexity of the area, four primary areas of actionstand out for examining change processes in e-learning. These are actions takenby or emanating from administration, pedagogy, technology, and community.

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


Change in any of these areas not only drives further change within the areaitself, but also drives and is driven by change in each other area. Administrationencompasses the decisions made about e-learning initiatives in education, andthe decision makers who direct this agenda. Pedagogy entails the knowledgeaccumulated about teaching and learning, as well as the teachers and instructorswho build and deliver courses. Technology in this instance is narrowly definedas the delivery mechanisms for e-learning, i.e., primarily computer-based tech-nology, including course management systems, e-mail, the Internet, and newlyemergent information and communication technologies. Community refers hereto potential and actual elearners and the communities they live in, both physicaland virtual, on-campus and off.

As decisions and implementations are made in each area, they have direct andindirect effects on other areas. Table 1.1 presents a first run at sorting out anddescribing the complex interactions of the four prime areas. It is offered as abeginning of such explanation. Future research will be able to refine and verifyimpacts, as well as considering other areas and streams of influence (e.g. eco-nomic factors). In Table 1.1, the direct and indirect effects are classified asdriver, passenger, emergent and second-order effects. Driver effects are evidentwhen an action stemming from one of the four identified areas has an impact onother aspects of e-learning, e.g. when administrative decisions about technologydrive what options are available for giving online classes and for maintaining anonline community. Passenger effects are evident in the way practices are trans-formed by the driving forces, e.g. in the way pedagogy can or must now proceedbecause of an administrative choice about technology. All driver effects have animpact on a passenger, but to save redundancy the passenger side impact is notgiven in the table. Instead, identification of a passenger effect is limited toinstances where the effect is less immediately expected. Readers may, however,prefer to see them all as driver effects, since even the unexpected passengereffect then becomes a driver for further change.

Outcomes that arise from action within the same area are identified as emer-gent effects; these appear primarily along the diagonal in Table 1.1. Suchinfluences may come from action within the local institution or programme, butalso from outside, e.g. as institutions look to and emulate peers, as colleaguesshare pedagogical techniques at conferences, and as new technologies appear.(See Scott, 1992, for more on the many kinds of ways organizations pay atten-tion to their environments, for example, following the actions of peerinstitutions, regional competitors, etc.).

Finally, outcomes that emerge because of new practices are indicated in thetable as second-order effects. These do not arise immediately but emerge later intime as a set of less expected outcomes; sometimes these become further driver,passenger, or emergent effects.

The effects described in Table 1.1 begin the work of identifying the majorpush-and-pull between developments in each of these areas. The ideas presentedin the table are not intended to be exhaustive, but instead illustrative of the kindof iterative action and reaction that is of importance to e-learning. It is hopedthat it will be taken up, expanded and tested by future e-learning research.

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


Tabl

e 1.

1:E-

lear

ning

dri

ver,

pass

enge

r,em

erge

nt,a

nd s

econ

d-or

der

effe

cts

Adm

inist

ratio

n dr

ives

…

Peda

gogy

driv

es …

Te

chno

logy

driv

es …

Co

mm

unity

driv

es …

Adm

inist

ratio

n! E

xter

nal A

driv

es A

:dec

ision

s"

P dr

ives

A:e

arly

ado

pter

s of t

echn

olog

y "

T dr

ives

A:a

vaila

bilit

y of

lear

ning

"

C dr

ives

A:

abou

t the

ado

ptio

n of

new

pra

ctice

s ex

perim

ent w

ith n

ew te

chno

logi

es in

thei

r te

chno

logy

syst

ems d

eter

min

es

com

mun

ity u

se o

f te

chno

logy

that

are

mad

e at

pee

r ins

titut

ions

cla

sses

,driv

ing

class

tran

sfor

mat

ion,

outre

ach

deve

lopm

ent v

ersu

s off-

the-

shel

f pur

chas

e dr

ives

adm

inist

rativ

e re

spon

se

driv

e de

cisio

ns a

nd p

ract

ices m

ade

prog

ram

mes

and

dist

ribut

ed le

arni

ng,e

ven

befo

re

optio

ns fo

r adm

inist

rativ

e ch

oice

s to

kee

p up

with

inco

min

gfo

r the

loca

l ins

titut

ion

wid

er a

dmin

istra

tion

choi

ces a

re m

ade

stud

ent e

xpec

tatio

ns a

nd

"T

driv

es A

:loc

al a

dopt

ion

of te

chno

logi

es

empl

oyer

s’ ex

pect

atio

ns!

"Ne

w P

driv

es A

:the

nee

d to

mee

t new

incr

ease

s nee

d fo

r har

dwar

e an

d so

ftwar

e ab

out t

rain

ing

tech

nolo

gy-b

ased

ped

agog

y dr

ives

adm

inist

ratio

npu

rcha

se,m

anag

emen

t and

trai

ning

and

to im

plem

ent s

uppo

rt m

echa

nism

s for

non

- sy

stem

upg

radi

ng

early

ado

pter

s to

lear

n to

teac

h on

line

Peda

gogy

"A

driv

es P

:adm

inist

rativ

e ! E

xter

nal P

driv

es P

:cha

nges

in p

edag

ogica

l "

T dr

ives

P:t

echn

olog

y ch

oice

s driv

e"

C dr

ives

P:c

hang

ing

decis

ions

and

dire

ctiv

es d

rive

prac

tice

are

disc

over

ed a

nd e

xcha

nged

ho

w te

achi

ng c

an b

e de

liver

ed a

nd w

ho

com

mun

ity w

ork

and

how

edu

catio

n w

ill b

e de

liver

ed

thro

ugh

prof

essio

nal o

rgan

izatio

ns,r

esea

rch

can

rece

ive

itkn

owle

dge

need

s driv

e an

d th

us th

e pr

iorit

ies f

or p

edag

ogy

and

publ

icatio

n af

fect

ing

loca

l pra

ctice

ne

ed fo

r life

long

lea

rnin

g,!

!P

and

T co

-evo

lve:

limita

tions

of

dist

ribut

ed a

nd m

obile

!!

New

P d

rives

P:n

orm

s of u

se a

re b

uilt,

tech

nolo

gy d

rive

chan

ges i

n pe

dago

gy,

lear

ning

crea

ting

a co

mpa

rison

set f

or e

-lear

ning

but p

edag

ogica

l req

uire

men

ts d

rive

prac

tices

as w

ell a

s a se

t to

lear

n fro

m a

nd c

opy

tech

nolo

gy d

esig

n an

d im

prov

emen

t

Tech

nolo

gy" A

driv

es T:

adm

inist

ratio

n m

akes

"

P dr

ives

T:te

ache

rs a

dopt

and

then

!Ex

tern

al T

driv

es T:

tech

nolo

gy tr

ends

are

"

C dr

ives

T:co

mm

unity

de

cisio

ns a

bout

inst

itutio

n-w

ide

expe

rimen

t with

tech

nolo

gy in

thei

r cla

sses

,m

atch

ed in

e-le

arni

ng,e

.g.e

nter

prise

-wid

e ex

pect

atio

ns a

bout

wha

t te

chno

logy

ado

ptio

n an

d su

ppor

t de

term

inin

g th

eir t

echn

olog

y pr

efer

ence

s,sy

stem

s with

cou

rse

man

agem

ent

syst

ems;

tech

nolo

gy m

akes

an

and

sit o

n w

orki

ng c

omm

ittee

s det

erm

inin

g co

mpu

ter-m

edia

ted

com

mun

icatio

n w

ith e

-mai

lin

stitu

tion

and

its p

rogr

amm

e#

A dr

ives

T:ad

min

istra

tive

tech

nolo

gy a

dopt

ions

acco

unts

and

supp

ort f

or st

uden

ts;I

nter

net w

ithpr

ogre

ssiv

e dr

ive

atte

ntio

n to

decis

ions

pus

h us

e of

tech

nolo

gy a

nd

onlin

e co

urse

rese

rves

,ele

ctro

nic

publ

icatio

nte

chno

logy

with

in th

eca

n lim

it ch

oice

of t

echn

olog

y# N

ew P

driv

es A

and

T:e-

lear

ning

lic

ence

s;di

strib

uted

com

putin

g w

ith d

istrib

uted

inst

itutio

n (e

.g.c

ampu

s-w

ide

sele

ctio

n of

a

solu

tions

are

ado

pted

and

impl

emen

ted

lear

ning

;mob

ile c

ompu

ting

with

mob

ile le

arni

ng

lear

ning

pla

tform

lim

its in

stru

ctor

in

resp

onse

to o

ppor

tuni

ties f

or o

utre

ach,

optio

ns to

use

diff

eren

t sys

tem

s ne

w p

edag

ogy,

etc.

!Ne

w T

driv

es T:

e-le

arni

ng sy

stem

s offe

ran

d ap

proa

ches

)a

stan

dard

rang

e of

opt

ions

,driv

ing

conf

orm

itybu

t also

nar

row

ing

e-le

arni

ng o

ptio

ns

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


Tabl

e 1.

1:co

nti

nu

ed

Adm

inist

ratio

n dr

ives

…

Peda

gogy

driv

es …

Te

chno

logy

driv

es …

Co

mm

unity

driv

es …

Com

mun

ity"

A dr

ives

C:e

xpec

tatio

ns o

f !# P

driv

es C

:ped

agog

ical r

equi

rem

ents

" T

driv

es C

:tec

hnol

ogy

pres

ence

driv

es

! C

driv

es C

:com

mun

ity

tech

nolo

gy u

se in

cla

sses

in h

ighe

r fo

r use

of o

nlin

e re

sour

ces h

ave

the

com

mun

ity e

fforts

to p

rom

ote

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gy u

se,a

nd su

ppor

ted

ucat

ion

driv

e th

e ne

ed fo

r the

un

expe

cted

con

sequ

ence

of d

istrib

utin

g an

d co

mpu

ter l

itera

cy,t

hus a

ffect

ing

for u

se,b

oots

traps

com

mun

ityco

mm

unity

to p

repa

re st

uden

ts

resp

onsib

ility

to p

ublic

acc

ess p

oint

s,e.

g.ho

w w

ell s

tude

nts a

re a

ble

to ta

ke

read

ines

s to

use

tech

nolo

gy

ap

prop

riate

ly

publ

ic an

d un

iver

sity

libra

ries a

t loc

atio

ns

adva

ntag

e of

tech

nolo

gies

and

e-le

arni

ngan

d to

take

par

t in

loca

l to

the

stud

ents

;suc

h in

stitu

tions

e-

lear

ning

then

act

as n

ests

for t

he d

istrib

uted

!

#T

driv

es C

:dist

ribut

ion

poss

ible

le

arni

ng ‘c

ucko

os’ (

Sear

ing,

pers

onal

be

caus

e of

tech

nolo

gy n

ow p

lace

s !#

C dr

ives

C:e

mbe

dded

com

mun

icatio

n)*

teac

hers

and

lear

ners

in th

e co

mm

unity

,le

arne

rs e

nact

new

at w

ork,

at h

ome

whi

le a

t sch

ool

rela

tions

hips

with

em

bedd

ing

!# P

driv

es E

xter

nal A

:use

of l

ocal

co

ntex

tun

iver

sity

libra

ries b

y no

n-en

rolle

dst

uden

ts le

ads t

o ne

w in

ter-o

rgan

izatio

nal

!#

C dr

ives

C:i

ncre

ased

adm

inist

rativ

e pr

actic

esus

e of

onl

ine

inte

ract

ions

for

educ

atio

n dr

ives

nor

ms f

or

how

to c

omm

unica

te a

nd d

ow

ork,

chan

ging

the

skill

se

t ava

ilabl

e to

em

ploy

ers

A ad

min

istra

tion,

C co

mm

unity

,P p

edag

ogy,

T te

chno

logy

"Dr

iver

effe

cts #

Pass

enge

r effe

cts !

Emer

gent

effe

cts !

Seco

nd-o

rder

effe

cts

*Per

sona

l com

mun

icatio

n,Su

e Se

arin

g,Li

brar

y an

d In

form

atio

n Sc

ienc

e Li

brar

ian,

Univ

ersit

y of

Illin

ois a

t Urb

ana-

Cham

paig

n

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


STRUCTURE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE HANDBOOK

We have taken the opportunity in this introduction to begin work on building aframework for e-learning research, emphasizing the key elements involved in the e-learning enterprise – learners, teachers, information and communication technology,local and societal level knowledge, and embedding contexts – leading to a focus ontwo theoretical perspectives – rhetorical theory and social informatics – and anemergent, co-evolutionary process of development. Ours is just a beginning, andinvites testing and debate. It is now time to turn to the work of others in thisHandbook who can illuminate other areas of research and exploration for e-learning.

The Handbook is organized in five parts. The first chapters set the context forresearch in e-learning, providing histories of important predecessors to e-learning, including reviews of the now long-standing fields of asynchronouslearning networks (Hiltz, Turoff and Harasim) and computers and writing(Hawisher and Selfe); the state of the digital divide (Haythornthwaite); theonline experience of gamers (McFarlane); and of the learning sciences thatdesign and study learning environments (Hoadley). The chapters in Part IIaddress theory, including a plea to maintain the understanding of ‘distance’ inour new e-learning contexts (Thompson), explorations of the rhetoric of newspaces and cultures of e-learning (Locke), the ways in which e-learningresearch, development and implementation can be (and actually are) organized(Whitworth), a theoretical approach to learning in a mobile age (Sharples,Taylor and Vavoula) and computer-supported collaborative learning (Miyake).From there, in Part III, we turn to policy, including issues of copyright and own-ership in relation to e-learning intellectual property (Varvel, Montague andEstabrook), an examination of international policy (Conole), e-learning in thecommunity (Kazmer), and what we know about individual differences and theeffectiveness of digital learning systems (Morgan and Morgan). In Part IVissues of language and literacy are addressed, beginning with two chaptersaddressing multilingual issues: one on bilingualism (Brutt-Griffler), and onereviewing second language learning online (Chapelle); and one applying liter-acy, learning and technology research to e-learning (Snyder). A further chapterexamines the practicalities of researching e-learning (Zhao). Part V examinesdesign issues, starting with how to design technically and socially for commu-nity (Stuckey and Barab), and continuing with chapters on programme designfor professional development (Harlen and Doubler) and graduate education(Roberts and Rostron); and a final chapter looking at current and future possi-bilities in digital video production and literacy in schools (Burn).

Inevitably, in such a large and expanding field of enquiry, there are limita-tions to the Handbook. While we have concentrated on the social dimensions ofe-learning, the nature of e-learning itself, communities of e-learning, theoreticaland methodological issues, and modelling e-learning processes, we acknowl-edge that we have hardly touched on technical or technological issues,pedagogical issues, the visual dimension of e-learning, forms of argumentationwithin e-learning, e-learning in the global south (see Leach et al., 2005), or

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


computer modelling of learning. These are all important and fascinating sub-fields, worthy of handbooks to themselves. Nevertheless, we hope to haveprovided at least an initial map for further research in the field.

NOTES

1 For more on modalities, see Halliday (1985) for detailed discussion of the distinctions between field,tenor and mode in systematic functional linguistics, and Kress (2001, 2003, 2005) for a developmentof the Hallidayan model into the semiotics and multimodalities of communication in education.

2 The continuously emergent nature of social interaction is inherent in Giddens’ (1984) structurationtheory. This has been taken up in relation to ICT use by Poole and DeSanctis (1990), Orlikowski(1992) and Galegher and Kraut (1990). For more on emergent communication processes see Mongeand Contractor (1997, 2003).

REFERENCES

Abbate, J. (1999) Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Andrews, R. (ed.) (1992) Rebirth of Rhetoric: Essays in Language, Culture and Education. Abingdon:

Routledge.Andrews, R. (ed.) (2004) The Impact of ICT on Literacy Education. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.Andrews, R. (2005a) ‘A dialogic model for research in education’, ESRC Research seminar on Dialogue

and Development, King’s College London, June.Andrews, R. (2005b) ‘Problems in e-learning research – and a possible solution’, Association of Internet

Researchers conference, Chicago, October.Andrews, R. and Noble, J. (1982) From Rough to Best. London: Ward Lock.Andrews, R., Burn, A., Leach, J., Locke, T., Low, G. and Torgerson, C. (2002) ‘A systematic review of the

impact of networked ICT on 5–16 year olds‘literacy in English’, EPPI-Centre Review, in ResearchEvidence in Education Library. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute ofEducation. Retrieved 20 May 2006 from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/reel.

Andrews, R., Freeman, A., Hou, D., McGuinn, N., Robinson, A. and Zhu, J. (2005) ‘The effectiveness ofdifferent ICTs in the teaching and learning of English (written composition), 5–16’, in ResearchEvidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute ofEducation. Retrieved 20 May 2006 from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/reel.

Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G. and Geva, A. (2003) ‘Network analysis of knowledge construction in asyn-

chronous learning networks’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (3): 1–23.Baecker, R. (ed.) (1993) Readings in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. San

Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Bakhtin, M. M. ([1953] 1986) ‘The problem of speech genres’, in C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds),

M. M. Bakhtin Speech Genres and other Late Essays, (Trans. V. W. McGee, C. Emerson and M.Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. pp. 60–102.

Bannon, L. (1989) ‘Issues in computer supported collaborative learning’, in C. O’Malley (ed.), ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 267–82.

Bannon, L. and Schmidt, K. (1991) ‘CSCW: four characters in search of a context’, in J. M. Bowers and S. D. Benford (eds), Studies in Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Theory, Practice, and Design.Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 3–16.

Bateson, G. ([1954] 1972) ‘A theory of play and fantasy’, in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York:Ballantine. pp. 117–93.

Baym, N. K. (2000) Tune in, Log on: Soaps, Fandom and Online Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.BECTA (2003a) Educational Research on Interactive Whiteboards: a Selection of Abstracts and Further

Sources. Coventry: British Educational Communication and Technology Agency.BECTA (2003b) What the Research Says about Interactive Whiteboards. Coventry: British Educational

Communication and Technology Agency.

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


BECTA (2006) The BECTA Review: Evidence on the Progress of ICT in Education. Coventry: BritishEducational Communication and Technology Agency.

Berge, Z. L. (1997) ‘Computer conferencing and the online classroom’, International Journal ofEducational Telecommunications, 3 (1): 3–21.

Bijker, W., (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bijker, W., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. (eds) (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: NewDirections in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bishop, A. P. (2000) ‘Communities for the new century’, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,43 (5): 472–8.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The forms of capital’, in J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Researchfor the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 241–58.

Bradner, E., Kellogg, W. and Erickson, T. (1999) ‘The adoption and use of “Babble”: a field study of chatin the workplace’, in Proceedings of the VI European Conference on Computer SupportedCooperative Work. Copenhagen. pp. 139–58.

Bregman, A. and Haythornthwaite, C. (2003) ‘Radicals of presentation: visibility, relation, and co-pres-ence in persistent conversation’, New Media and Society, 5 (1): 117–40.

Bruffee, Kenneth A. (1993) Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and theAuthority of Knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Burn, A. and Leach, J. (2004) ‘A systematic review of the impact of ICT on the learning of literacies asso-ciated with moving image texts in English, 5–16’, in Research Evidence in Education Library.EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, London. Retrieved 20 May 2006from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/reel.

Carroll, J. M. (2002) Human–Computer Interaction in the New Millennium. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Castells, M. (2001) The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. New York:

Oxford University Press.Cherny, L. (1999) Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World. Stanford, CA: CSLI

Publications.Cho, H. Stefanone, M. and Gay, G. (2002) Social Network Analysis of Information Sharing Networks in a

CSCL Community. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning conferences,Boulder, CO.

Clark, H. H. (1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cohill, A. M. and Kavanaugh, A. L. (2000) Community Networks: Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia (2nd

edn). Boston, MA: Artech House.Collins, R. (1998) The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge,

MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Connolly, T. and Thorn, B. K. (1990) ‘Discretionary data bases: theory, data and implications’, in J. Fulk

and C. W. Steinfield (eds), Organizations and Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.pp. 219–34.

Cook, S. D. N, and Brown, J. S. (1999) ‘Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organi-zational knowledge and organizational knowing’, Organization Science, 10 (4): 381–400.

Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (ed.) (2000) Multiliteracies. Abingdon: Routledge.Corbett, E. (1965) Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York: Oxford University Press.Crabtree, A., Rodden, T. and Benford, S. (2005) ‘Moving with the times: IT research and the boundaries

of CSCW’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14 (3): 217–51.Crook, C. (1989) ‘Educational practice within two local computer networks’, in C. O’Malley (ed.),

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 165–82.Crook, C. (2002) ‘Learning as cultural practice’, in M. R. Lea and K. Nicoll (eds) Distributed Learning:

Social and Cultural Approaches to Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 152–69.Crystal, D. (2001) Language and the Internet. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986) ‘Organizational information requirements, media richness and struc-

tural design’, Management Science, 32 (5): 554–71.Danziger, J. N., Dutton, W. H., Kling, R. and Kraemer, K. L. (1982) Computers and Politics. New York:

Columbia University Press.Dutton, W. H., Cheong, P. H. and Park, N. (2004) ‘An ecology of constraints on e-learning in higher edu-

cation: the case of a virtual learning environment’, Prometheus, 22 (2): 131–49.

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


Eagleton, T. (1983) Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Engeström, Y. and Middleton, D. (1996) Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Engeström, Y. (1999a) ‘Innovative learning in work teams: analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in

practice’, in Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R. Punamäki (eds), Perspectives on Activity Theory,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 377–404.

Engeström, Y. (1999b) ‘Learning by expanding: ten years after’, trans. F. Seege. Lernen durch Expansion.Marburg: BdWi-Verlag, Retrieved 1 August, 2006 from: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/intro.htm.

Erickson, T. (1999) ‘Persistent conversation: an introduction’, Journal of Computer-MediatedCommuncation, 4 (4). Available online at: http://www. ascusc. org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/ericksonintro.html

Finholt, T. (2002) ‘Collaboratories’, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36: 73–107.Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B. and Winograd, T. (1988) ‘Computer systems and the design of organi-

zational interaction’, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6 (2): 153–72.Frye, N. ([1957] 1969) Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. New York: Athenaeum Press.Galegher, J. and Kraut, R. E. (1990) ‘Technology for intellectual teamwork: perspectives on research and

design’, in J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut and C. Egido (eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social andTechnological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 1–20.

Garrison, D. R. and Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the Twenty-first Century. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.Gaver, W. (1996) ‘Situating action’ II: ‘Affordances for interaction: the social is material for design’,

Ecological Psychology, 8: 111–29.Gerard, F. and Widener, J. (1999) ‘A SMARTer Way to Teach Foreign Languages: the SMART BoardTM

Interactive Whiteboard as a Language Learning Tool’. Retrieved 2 August, 2006, from:http://education.smarttech.com/NR/rdonlyres/3CABE650-1C29-4E3A-BC21-45BB97F08B0D/0/SBforeignlanguageclass.pdf.

Gibson, J. J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.Glover, D. and Miller, D. (2001) ‘Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale intro-

duction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school’, Journal of Information Technology forTeacher Education, 10 (3): 257–76.

Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Goodison, T. A. M. (2002) ‘Learning with ICT at primary level: pupils’ perceptions’, Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 18: 282–95.Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2005) Adult Learning in the Digital Age. London: Continuum.Graves, D. (1983) Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Haas, C. (1996) Studies in the Materiality of Literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action I, Reason and the Rationalization of Society.

London: Heinemann.Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. (1995) Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and

Learning Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Hawisher, G. and Selfe, C. L. (eds) (1999) Passions, Pedagogies, and twenty-first Century Technologies.

Logan, UT: Utah State University Press; Urbana, IL: NCTE.Haythornthwaite, C. (2002a) ‘Strong, weak and latent ties and the impact of new media’, Information

Society, 18 (5): 385–401.Haythornthwaite, C. (2002b) ‘Building social networks via computer networks: creating and sustaining dis-

tributed learning communities’, in K. A. Renninger and W. Shumar (eds), Building Virtual Communities:Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 159–90.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005) ‘Social networks and Internet connectivity effects’, Information,Communication and Society, 8 (2): 125–47.

Haythornthwaite, C. (forthcoming-a) ‘Articulating divides in distributed knowledge practice’,Information, Communication and Society.

Haythornthwaite, C. (forthcoming-b) ‘Social networks and online community’, in A. Joinson, K.McKenna, U. Reips and T. Postmes (eds), Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


Haythornthwaite, C. and Kazmer, M. M. (2002). ‘Bringing the Internet home: adult distance learners andtheir Internet, home and work worlds’, in B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite (eds), The Internet inEveryday Life. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 431–63.

Haythornthwaite, C. and Kazmer, M. M. (eds) (2004) Learning, Culture and Community in OnlineEducation: Research and Practice. New York: Peter Lang.

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robins, J. and Shoemaker, S. (2000) ‘Community developmentamong distance learners: temporal and technological dimensions’, Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 6 (1). Available online at: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornth-waite.html.

Haythornthwaite, C. and Wellman, B. (2002). ‘Introduction: Internet in everyday life’, in B. Wellman andC. Haythornthwaite (eds), The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 3–44.

Herring, S. C. (2002) ‘Computer-mediated communication on the Internet’, Annual Review ofInformation Science and Technology, 36: 109–68.

Higgins, S., Falzon, C., Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, H. and Wall, K. (2005) Embedding ICT in the Literacyand Numeracy Strategies. Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Available onlineat: http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/univ_newcastle_evaluation_whiteboards.pdf.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (2005) HEFCE Strategy for e-learning. Bristol: HEFCE.Hrastinski, S. (2006) ‘Introducing an informal synchronous medium in a distance learning course: how is

participation affected?’ Internet and Higher Education (in press).Kaye, A. R. (1995) ‘Computer supported collaborative learning’, in N. Heap, R. Thomas, G. Einon, R.

Mason and H. MacKay (eds), Information Technology and Society, London: Sage. pp. 192–210.Kaye, A. R. (ed.) (1991) Collaborative Learning through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers.

Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Keeble, L. and Loader, B. (eds) (2001) Community Informatics: Shaping Computer-Mediated Social

Relations. Abingdon: Routledge.Kendall, Lori (2002) Hanging out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Berkeley, CA

and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Kinneavy, J. (1971) A Theory of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kling, R., Rosenbaum, H. and Sawyer, S. (2005) Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics.

Medford, NJ: Information Today.Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Koschmann, T. (ed.) (1996) CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Koschmann, T., Hall, R. and Miyake, N. (eds) (2002) CSCL 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V. and Crawford, A. (2002) ‘Internet paradox

revisited’, Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1): 49–74.Kraut, R., Patterson, V. L., Kiesler, S., Mukhopadhyay, T. and Scherilis, W. (1998) ‘Internet paradox: a

social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?’, AmericanPsychologist, 53 (9): 1017–31.

Kress, G. (2001) Multimodal Teaching and Learning: the Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London:Continuum.

Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age. Abingdon: Routledge.Kress, G. (2005) English in Urban Classrooms: Multimodal Perspectives in Teaching and Learning.

Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.Lanham, R. (1992) The Electronic Word. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.

Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1967) ‘Differentiation and integration in complex organizations’, ASQ,

12: 1–47.Lazarsfeld, P. (1940) ‘“Panel” studies’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 4: 122–8.Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Fiske, M. (1938) ‘The panel as a new tool for measuring opinion’, Public Opinion

Quarterly, 2: 596–612.

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39


Leach, J., Ahmed, A., Makalima, S. and Power, T. (2005) Deep Impact: an Investigation of the Use ofInformation and Communication Technologies for Teacher Education in the Global South. London:Department for International Development

Levy, P. (2002) Interactive Whiteboards in Learning and Teaching in Two Sheffield Schools: aDevelopmental Study. Sheffield: Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield.

Levy, P., Ford, N., Foster, J., Madden, A., Miller, D., Nunes, M. B., McPherson, M. and Webber, S.(2003) ‘Educational informatics: an emerging research agenda’, Journal of Information Science,29 (4): 298–310.

Loader, B. (1997) The Governance of Cyberspace: Politics, Technology and Global Restructuring.Abingdon: Routledge.

Locke, T. and Andrews, R. (2004) ‘A systematic review of the impact of ICT on literature-related literaciesin English, 5–16’, in Research Evidence in Education Library. EPPI-Centre, Social Science ResearchUnit, Institute of Education, London. Retrieved 20 May 2006 from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/reel.

Low, G. and Beverton, S. (2004) ‘A systematic review of the impact of ICT on literacy learning in Englishof learners between 5 and 16, for whom English is a second or additional language’, in ResearchEvidence in Education Library. EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,London. Retrieved 20 May 2006 from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/reel.

Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C. (2000) Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and InformingSystem Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lunsford, K. J. and Bruce, B. C. (2001) ‘Collaboratories: working together on the web’, Journal ofAdolescent and Adult Literacy, 45 (1): 52–8.

MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Malone, T. W., Grant, K. R., Lai, K. Y., Rao, R. and Rosenblitt, D. A. (1989) ‘The information lens: an intel-ligent system for information sharing and coordination’, in M. H. Olson (ed.), Technological Supportfor Work Group Collaboration. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 143–72.

Markus, M. L. (1990) ‘Toward a ‘critical mass’ theory of interactive media’, in J. Fulk and C. W. Steinfield(eds), Organizations and Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 194–218.

Markus, M. L. and Robey, D. (1983) ‘The organizational validity of management information systems’,Human Relations, 36 (3): 203–26.

Miller, C. (1984) ‘Genre as social action’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70 (2): 151–67.Miller, C. (1994) ‘Rhetorical community: the cultural basis of genre’, in A. Freedman and P. Medway

(eds), Genre and the New Rhetoric. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis. pp. 67–78.Monge, P. R. and Contractor, N. S. (1997) ‘Emergence of communication networks’, in F. M. Jablin and

L. L. Putnam (eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. pp. 440–502.

Monge, P. R. and Contractor, N. S. (2003) Theories of Communication Networks. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Nielsen, J. (1994) Usability Engineering. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Noble, F. and Newman, M. (1993) ‘Integrated system, autonomous departments: organizations, invalid-

ity and system change in a university’, Journal of Management Studies, 30 (2): 195–219.Norman, D. (1988) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.O’Malley, C. (ed.) (1989) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) ‘The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organiza-

tions’, Organization Science, 3 (3): 398–427.Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J. (1994) ‘Genre repertoire: the structuring of communicative practices in

organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 541–74.Oud, J. H. L. (2002) ‘Continuous time modelling of the cross-lagged panel design’, Kwantitatieve

Methoden, 69: 1–26.Perrow, C. (1970) Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.Pinch, T. J. and Bijker, W. E. (1984) ‘The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology

of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other’, Social Studies of Science, 14:399–441.

Poole, M. S. and DeSanctis, G. (1990) ‘Understanding the use of group decision support systems: Thetheory of adaptive structuration’, in J. Fulk and C. W. Steinfield (eds), Organizations andCommunication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 173–93.

CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Rafaeli, S. and Sudweeks, F. (1997) ‘Networked interactivity’, Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 2 (4). Available online at: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sud-weeks.html.

Resnick, L. B. Levine, J. M. and Teasdale, S. D. (eds) (1991) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rice, R. E. and Rogers, E. M. (1980) ‘Reinvention in the innovation process’, Knowledge, 1 (4):499–514.

Roethlisberger, F. and Dickson, W. (1939) Management and the Worker: An Account of a ResearchProgramme conducted by the Western Electric Company, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Rogers, E. M (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. (4th edn). New York: The Free Press.Rogers, E. M., Eveland, J. D. and Klepper, C. (1977) The Innovation Process in Organizations. Ann Arbor,

MI: Michigan: Department of Journalism, University of Michigan. NSF Grant RDA 75–17952.Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.Rueter, M. A. and Conger, R. D. (1998) ‘Reciprocal influences between parenting and adolescent prob-

lem-solving behaviour’, Developmental Psychology, 34: 1470–82.Saltz, J. S., Hiltz, S. R., and Turoff, M. (2004). ‘Student Social Graphs: Visualizing a Student’s Online

Social Network’. Proceedings of the CSCW ’04 conference, Chicago.Schmidt, K. and Bannon, L. (1992) ‘Taking CSCW seriously: supporting articulation work’, Computer

Supported Cooperative Work, 1: 7–41.Scott, A. and Page, M. (2001) ‘Change agency and women’s learning: new practices in community infor-

matics’, in L. Keeble and B. Loader (eds), Community Informatics: Shaping Computer-MediatedSocial Relations. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 49–174.

Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.Searle, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press.SMART Technologies (2004) Interactive Whiteboards and Learning: A Review of Classroom Case Studies

and Research Literature. Retrieved 2 August, 2006, from: http://education.smarttech.com/NR/rdon-lyres/30258C60-24D0-43D5-A1D2-BDE1A93B6F93/0/InteractiveWhiteboardsAndLearning.pdf.

Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K. and Miller, J. (2005) ‘Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? Acritical review of the literature’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (2): 90–101.

Somekh, B. and Haldane, M. (2006) ‘How can Interactive Whiteboards contribute to PedagogicChange? Learning from Case Studies in English Primary Schools’. Paper given at FIP WG 3.1/3.3/3.5conference, Ålesund, June.

Suchman, L. (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suchman, L. (1994) ‘Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered’,Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2: 177–90.

Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Tannen, D. (ed.) (1993) Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Taylor, F. W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper.Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Torgerson, C. and Zhu, D. (2003) ‘A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ICT on

literacy learning in English, 5–16’, in Research Evidence in Education Library. EPPI-Centre, SocialScience Research Unit, Institute of Education, London. Retrieved 20 May 2006 from:http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/reel.

Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1990) ‘Understanding managers' media choice: a symbolicinteractionist perspective’, in J. Fulk and C. W. Steinfield (eds), Organizations and CommunicationTechnology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 71–94.

Trist, E. L. and Bamford, K. W. (1951) ‘Some social and psychological consequences of the longwallmethod of coal-getting’, Human Relations, 4 (1): 6–24, 37–8.

Tweddle (1997) ‘A retrospective: fifteen years of computers in English’, English in Education, 31 (2): 5–13.Vickers, B. (1988) In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

Vygotsky, L. (1986) Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Warschauer, M. (2000) ‘Language, identity, and the Internet’, in B. E. Kolko, L. Nakamura and G. B.

Rodman (eds) Race in Cyberspace, New York: Routledge. pp. 151–70.Warschauer, M. (2003) Technology and Social Inclusion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wellman, B. (1979) ‘The community question’, American Journal of Sociology, 84: 1201–31.Wellman, B. (1997) ‘An electronic group is a social network’, in S. Kiesler (ed.), Cultures of the Internet.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 179–205.Wellman, B. (2002) ‘Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism?’ in M. Tanabe, P. van den

Besselaar and T. Ishida (eds), Digital Cities II, Computational and Sociological Approaches, Berlin:Springer-Verlag. pp. 10–25

Wellman, B. (ed.) (1999) Networks in the Global Village. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Wellman, B. and Berkowitz, S. D. (eds) (1997) Social Structures: A Network Approach (updated edn).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (eds) (2002) The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford: Blackwell.Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M. and Haythornthwaite, C. (1996) ‘Computer

networks as social networks: collaborative work, telework, and virtual community’, Annual Review ofSociology, 22: 213–38.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., de Diaz, I. I. and Miyata, K. (2003) ‘Thesocial affordances of the Internet for networked individualism’, Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 8 (3). Available online at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/wellman.html.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Whitworth, A. (2006) ‘Dynamic but prosaic: a methodology for studying e-learning environments’,International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 29: 2, 149–61.

Williams, R. and Edge, R. (1996) ‘The social shaping of technology’, Research Policy, 25: 856–99.Winograd, T. (1994) ‘Categories, disciplines, and social coordination’, Computer Supported Cooperative

Work, 2: 191–7.Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for

Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Yates, J. and Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) ‘Genres of organizational communication: a structurational

approach to studying communication and media’, Academy of Management Journal, 17 (2):299–326.

Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: BasicBooks, Inc.

Zucker, A., Kozma, R. and Dede, C. (2003) The Virtual High School: Teaching Generation V. New York:Teachers College Press.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN) and the UK’s Economic andSocial Research Council (ESRC) for support of a series of seminars on e-learning organized on behalf ofthe Universities of Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Southampton and York by Richard Andrews,held in 2004–6. Richard Andrews thanks colleagues for feedback and discussion on the modeldescribed in the introduction, especially Professor Angela Douglas of the Biology Department at theUniversity of York. Caroline Haythornthwaite thanks the University of Illinois at Urbana–ChampaignResearch Board for travel funds to attend the UK seminars, and WUN for support of a workshop sheorganized on e-learning held at the Association of Internet Researchers conference, in Chicago in 2005.We thank David Pilsbury and WUN for the opportunity to participate in e-learning meetings held in2005 and 2006, and for WUN’s series of video-conferences on e-learning topics, organized by AndrewWhitworth, who has also commented helpfully on an earlier version of the introduction. We also wish tothank all contributors to the Handbook for their efforts and scholarship in creating this collection.


CH01.QXD 18/5/07 12:39

introduction to e-learning research - ideals...introduction to e-learning research r ic h a rd a n d...

Documents